This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

 Done

I think Hotel Mocambo (1944) should be added to Miss Gloria DeHaven's filmography in the relevant Wikipedia article (English language). As of July 30, 2012, it's missing. Too bad... Brumon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brumon ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't what we normally think of as a BLP issue, but a link to the film is listed there. it:Hotel Mocambo is the Italian title of what was called Step Lively (1944 film) in the US. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ross Rowland (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Southern Railway of Vancouver Island (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An unsigned user keeps restoring a lengthy, unsourced paragraph that violates WP:BLP. I've deleted the paragraph several times, but he keeps restoring it. I might suggest that the IP numbers that he uses (there've been at least two) be blocked from editing this article.

He also repeatedly restores a similar paragraph in Southern Railway of Vancouver Island.

n2xjk ( talk) 21:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted (as unsourced), but I suspect that won't be the end of it. You might need to take it to WP:3RRN. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 22:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• There's been nothing but editorialization and vandalism from those IP addresses, which all geolocate together and to the places that the vandalism is related to, for four years. Witness this edit and this edit, for example. I've revoked their editing privileges indefinitely. (They, in particular the IP address apparently assigned to a business local to the area, seem to be stable assignments. There are a few more domestic and cellular telephone IP addresses from 2008 and 2009 that were clearly the same person that I've left unblocked.) Uncle G ( talk) 16:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last long. He's back on another IP doing the same thing. n2xjk ( talk) 16:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have requested semi protection of both articles at the WP:RFPP - Youreally can 16:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Update - both articles semi protected by Ponyo - Youreally can 05:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! n2xjk ( talk) 15:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Paloma Faith (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apologies if this is the wrong place, but I think something needs to be set in stone regarding Paloma Faith's birth year. It appears that she was born in 1981, but her birth year has been given as 1985 instead. Most sources say she is 26/27 (depending on how recent the article is, her birthday was last week), but so far there are no reliable sources to back up the fact she was born in 1981 and is 31. This issue has come up a few times on her article's talk page and the date in the article has also been changed a few times, but with no reliable source provided. I've come here for some advice on what to do. Do we add both years to the article, remove the year altogether (the day and month are correct) or something else entirely? - JuneGloom Talk 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It may end up like Sondra Locke with both years listed. See the long talk page discussions there.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 21:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In England and Wales Births, Marriages and Deaths are recorded by the General Register Office, the index to these is widely available to subscribers of various family history sites like Ancestry, Find My Past etc. It is also available for viewing free of charge in various locations in the UK - British Library and some major libraries I believe. The LDS also provide free access to some of these family history sites at their Family History Centres as do many libraries. Many users here have subscriptions to allow them to view these public records which are copies of the UK official record. But there is regularly on Wikipedia an attitude that if something is not available free of charge online then it cannot be used as a reference, this rules out quoting any book in the British Library, any document in The National Archives and many other sources which is all rather ridiculous. jmb ( talk) 11:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks a source must be available for free on-line can be directed to WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 12:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:BLPPRIMARY public records which include personal information such as date of birth should not be used as sources. Editors asserting that she was born in 1981 need to provide a reliable secondary source for their claim. January ( talk) 16:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

However, BLPPRIMARY does not prevent primary sources being used in talkpage discussion to show that secondary sources are in error. Formerip ( talk) 00:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if the birth register shows someone of the right name born in 1981, there is still the issue of identifying that person as the one the article is about. Even unusual-looking names can be shared by more than one person. This is the sort of problem that makes us cautious about using primary sources. If I understand the talk page, this person claims to be younger. If so, it is a BLP issue as well as a primary source issue. Without a "reliable secondary source" in support, I don't think it is permissible to rely on our own interpretation of a primary source to "prove" that someone is lying. Zero ^talk 04:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In this the subject has quite an unusual combination of names so it is very unlikely that anyone else has that particular combination of names and can be easily checked with a search from 1837 to 2006 online, usually the mother's maiden name is used to check that the right person has been found. I find it incredible that Wikipedia does not consider the official national record of births is sufficient but for example an autobiography backed up by a press release from a spin doctor (sorry, PR agent) would be accepted! I am fairly sure that the more authoritative Dictionary of National Biography accept corrections based on the General Register Office entry? jmb ( talk) 08:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is that we don't break new ground in researching and reporting something that no-one previously has. But we also don't (or shouldn't) publish information we know to be false. Formerip ( talk) 00:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Adrian Năstase‎ (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sleeper account Elysander ( talk · contribs) has suddenly awaken today (after 2 years) and started adding defamatory claims (in subpar English) on the article about former Romanian prime-minister Adrian Năstase‎ diff 1, diff 2, diff 3. Anonimu ( talk) 17:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"he should have tried to shoot himself in the head"! Definitely subpar English, at best. I've reverted this, and will leave a message on Elysander's talk page suggesting s/he discusses this at Talk:Adrian Năstase. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There is NO evidence that Nastase's suicide attempt took place. In the Austrian, Swiss and German Press ( print and online) the rising doubts regarding this attempt are very well documented and recherched:

Krone [1] - Die Presse [2] - NZZ NeueZürcherZeitung [3] - Welt [4] - Spiegel Online [5] and many more sources ....

Quote Spiegel Online: "Um der Haft zu entgehen, inszenierte Nastase einen theatralischen Selbstmordversuch, was ihm jedoch nur einige Tage Aufschub verschaffte - inzwischen sitzt er im Gefängnis." To escape the arrest, Nastase staged a theatrical suicide attempt, which gave him only a few days' delay - now he is in prison' [6] - Elysander ( talk) 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

How do any of these sources support your edit suggesting that "he should have tried to shoot himself in the head"? In any case, the correct procedure is to discuss this on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not my subpar English but this dubious part of the Nastase article. The sentence with its quotes only reflects the situation in progress at a certain date based on informations given by Nastase's family and party. No third party has confirmed the theory of a suicide attempt til today. - Elysander ( talk) 09:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Robert Coates (politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Mr.Coats left behind top secret North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) documents 'War Orders' that was in his possession. The bar manager of Tiffany's brought the document to Military Police officer Sgt. Faubert's attention, who also wrote the unusual incident report." Aside from misspellings and poor writing, this is unsourced, possibly defamatory and most likely false. I was in Lahr at the time. I am a broadcast journalist and I covered the story of Bob Coates and Tiffany's for CBC Radio Montreal. I followed the mini-scandal while it developed and never once saw any reference to, nor heard any speculation about, any documents that Coates "left behind." Nor have I been able to come up with any independent source for this piece of information (that wasn't just copy/pasted from Wikipedia). It doesn't make any sense anyway. Who would bring confidential papers with him to a strip bar... and leave them behind? The "Sgt. Faubert" mentioned in the article lacks a surname. Who was the manager of Tiffany's that was cited? This article in the Montreal Gazette is how I remember the Coates scandal: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19850214&id=XTcjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tqUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1630,1659504 Coates resigned because he placed himself in a compromising situation, not because he left some supposed documents in a strip bar. Regards, Bill Peterson in Berlin (reply to (Redacted)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.76.28 ( talk) 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for raising this issue. As a first step, I've removed the currently unsourced information about the scandal in the article. Later I will look into re-expanding the article based on the Montreal Gazette source, and maybe one or two others. The article is woefully lacking references at the moment. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 14:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• ( edit conflict) - LOL - Hi Bill = thanks for the report - Article is in need of some inline citations. Currently the disputed content is united and contensious - if an interested user could look at bringing the bio a bit more wiki policy compliant and remove the contensious uncited. Youreally can 14:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've also redacted your email address from this page, as it's not a good idea to post such things here. I'm also a bit puzzled why your email address would contain the surname of the person you're commenting on. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 14:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• We can thank some person in Ottowa for that. Faubert is a surname, by the way. And the several Gazette articles confirm that the nightclub was named Tiffany's. Be aware when rewriting this article that the Gazette articles report as fact some things that Coates then sued the Ottawa Citizen over for libel. Be careful what material you use, and read the press coverage from later that year and the years following. Uncle G ( talk) 15:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Uncle G, noted. I did include the "and maybe one or two others" clause when I saw that all might not be exactly as it seemed :) -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 18:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Eric Hughes (film producer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person is not legitimate to be on wikipedia. This appears to be a vanity article. There are little to no third party sources. This has happened before when he used the name Eric B. Hughes and he was deleted because of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomboxboombox ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Eric Hughes (film producer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomboxboombox ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And it was created by a single purpose account with named NYK1968. Hughes, according to his IMDB page, was born in '68. He admits to being the publicist for the film company. Ian.thomson ( talk) 21:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's 400 metre individual medley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ye Shiwen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

John Leonard called an exceptional performance by Chinese swimmer, Ye Shiwen, "disturbing" and drew parallels with Michelle Smith, who was banned for drug use. These suggestions were widely reported in the media. 1, 2, 3

1. Is there a way to report this without infringing WP:BLP?
2. Is WP:BLP more restrictive then standard libel laws as this issue was reported in the media in a suitably qualified manner? Ankh. Morpork 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I certainly wouldn't have a section on this all to itself, as we currently have at Ye Shiwen#Controversy. (Separating anything even remotely disagreed about off from its proper context and lumping it all into sections marked "controversy", or "legal issues", or similar is a Wikipedia disease that needs to be combatted.) Ye Shiwen#2012 Summer Olympics, as a subheading of the career section, would seem to be a far better way to handle this. Your third source there, Thompson 2012, gives enough material to flesh out this person's earlier career in a subsection prior to that. Uncle G ( talk) 23:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with everyone's favorite uncle. I shortened it a bit and moved it into the subsection as suggested. -- GRuban ( talk) 15:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I was actually in the middle of doing the same thing and edit conflicted with you. ☺ I noticed that the article had been reduced to semi-protection and decided to have a go. I held off when it was fully protected. I haven't yet used Thompson 2012, linked to above, but I've expanded somewhat on the biography of the subject before this year. It's a rare event to find myself working on a sourced biography of a 16-year-old. Uncle G ( talk) 17:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The answer to "Is WP:BLP more restrictive then standard libel laws...?" is yes. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 12:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Spearhead's placed a BLP on the dashboard, link's here. I can't remove this, so I'm requesting it be removed. Thanks "....We are all Kosh...."   <-Babylon-5-> 18:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Candy Lightner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SPA user talk:CDoddridge keeps adding a great deal of essaylike content at Candy Lightner, as well as removing all sources and damaging the article structure. I am not going to revert this again, but the article is wounded at the moment. I expect to wait until this individual wanders off to damage some other article before working on the Lightner article any further. Whatever any interested editor decides to do, please don't come to my talk page. I am unfriendly. The article talk page will suffice, I am sure. User talk:Unfriend12 18:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I am not notifying the the editor as hesheit has instructed me to stay off hiserits talk page. User talk:Unfriend12 18:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, rereading the message on my talk page "Get off my page and quit making changes. Go find your own accomplishments and quit messing with mine. Candace Lightner" - it seems this anon person is claiming to *BE* the subject, editing her own article. FYI only. User talk:Unfriend12 18:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, The altered version is unwikified and frankly a complete mess. It also contains a huge amount of POV language, which isn't really surprising as it's copied from the bio on her Facebook page. Reverted, semi-protected. Black Kite ( talk) 18:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "Quotes" section which was entirely unreferenced. Ditch ∝ 04:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Youvan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can some experienced editors please take a look at this article and the talk page? There seems to be a very slow back-and-forth discussion using words like libel, and that negative aspects of the article are "hurting" fundraising efforts. With unsigned comments, and discussion formatted in such a way as I am unsure who is responding to what point, it's all rather beyond me. Full disclosure: I nom'd the article for deletion due to NOTE and PROF, and even added a /ref after the fact provided by a person commenting on the woefully sparse AFD discussion. But I've also been told in that same discussion that one factor that makes this person notable ( H-index) cannot (or should not) be used as a reference, which is...well...just beyond my experience. The article and its editing history can be easily seen for what it is...and the talk page is relatively short. The AFD discussion is obviously linked from there as well. So anyone willing to take a look should easily find what they need. I don't feel the need to link to a bunch of diffs here...it's all there in short form...but someone more experienced might take a look , b/c it's a little beyond me, and there are some "legal" insinuations being tossed about. Thanks, Ditch ∝ 04:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Article is currently under discussion at - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Youvan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Youreally can 05:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Marion Kozak (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Kozak ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bio created today by User:IZAK - the bio has previously (not this one but historic versions) been deleted twice. Although she is mentioned in articles I don't think she is notable for anything specific - the mother of two notable people and the wife of a notable person and coming from a Polish town were atrocities were committed (this appears coat-racked onto her life story) - its a life story about her not the atrocity? She was seven or eight when she emigrated/fled to Belgium) all seem to be added in bloating the fact that there is nothing actually notable about her - just my first thought on reading the article - could someone else have a look and see what you think - there are also a few opinionated comments/flourishes in the reading also and the citations with multiple uses need sorting out to see the wood from the trees - thanks - Youreally can 04:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• What has - as reported in the Daily Mail. Israel has awarded over 6,000 Righteous among the Nations awards to Poles more than to any other.... got to do with Marion Kosak? That she is Polish? The see also section also seems unduly focused to me for a biography Marion_Kozak#See_also - Update - now at WP:AFD - link is at the top of this report - Youreally can 04:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hooman Majd (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A couple of editors are trying to insert right-wing/neo-con libelous statements against a notable Iranian-American scholar, essentially calling him an agent of the Iranian regime, into the lead of his article. [7] [8] Hooman Majd is an independent mainstream commentator and a US citizen, who regularly appears on ABC, CNN and NBC news as an expert on Iran. [9] The lead is no place for libelous statements/subjective opinions about the subject, and a clear violation of WP:BLP. This is like putting Michele Bachmann's accusations against Huma Abedin, into the lead of her article as a fact. I am hoping a few more people would keep an eye on this article. As a last resort, I may have to notify the subject of this article, to file a complaint with Wikipedia office. Kurdo777 ( talk) 05:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Stuff in the green box moved here from WP:AN/I. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well thats a bit more troubling as far as cherry-picking sources go, but at least there is a solid source to build from now. Although now I am irritated why the problematic bit in the lead didnt show up when I did a search. (All I got were national post results) Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the alleged inserters of "right-wing/neo-con libelous statements against a notable Iranian-American scholar." I did take the quote “high profile explainer of the Iranian regime” from the National Post (the 7th biggest English-language newspaper in Canada and 2nd 4th biggest in Toronto. It's not exactly Newmax or Fox News and (on further examination, National Post is pretty ideological) if others feel the need I'm happy to add something like "according to the pro-Israeli National Post newspaper." I would have searched for the quote in the original source but I'm at work and time was short. I'm more than happy to change the wording in the article to "Roland Elliott Brown, writing in the Observer, has called Majd `a high-profile explainer of the Iranian regime to American audiences` and `a sometimes sympathetic communicator of the regime's positions, and an enthusiast only for its most loyal oppositionists`", or something shorter.

Anyway I think there is a very big difference between saying `He has been described as a “sometimes sympathetic communicator” of the Iranian government's positions` ( my wording), and "essentially calling him an agent of the Iranian regime" (as Kurdo's accuses me).

(PS, anyone puzzled by why this issue wasn't settle in a civil talk page back-and-forth might want to look at the long (many years) and tortuous attempt by myself and some others to fix (what we feel is) an appallingly bad article on the 1953 Iranian coup d'état that Kurdo has long ferociously defended.) -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 23:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

First thing to catch my eye here is that I'm being attacked by Kurdo777 as an editor supposedly adding "right-wing/neo-con libelous statements" to an article. How laughable my friends would find that statement... I'm quite the liberal. What I was doing in the article was reinforcing the fact that the cited source was being interpreted correctly. I couldn't give a fig for Mr. Majd... I had never heard of him before coming to the article and reading the cited source. I have no horse in the race. My initial interest was the result of BoogaLouie's talk page being on my watchlist, and thus I saw a sharply worded warning from Kurdo777 to BoogaLouie, one which made me curious to see what the problem was. At any rate, I determined there was no violation of BLP because the source was not being misused. Binksternet ( talk) 16:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

One more thing. I did a search to see what other sources had talked about the tweets and found an article in Huffington Post, (which far from being neo-con is on the Republican Party shit list). It notes that `The Amazon listing for his (Majd's) most recent book, "The Ayatollahs' Democracy. An Iranian Challenge", touts his "privileged access to the Iranian power elite"`, and as far as Majd's denial of making the tweet goes, Various Twitter users, however, have argued that the fact the tweet originated from the same application regularly used by Mahd and that it was so quickly deleted, only to be followed by more tweets about Afshin-Jam, suggests the account was not hacked. You can see the Twitter debate in the slideshow at the bottom of this story. (from Nazanin Afshin-Jam Target Of Offensive Tweet, Hooman Majd Blames Hackers The Huffington Post Canada | By Michael Bolen )

So please, less hysteronics about "right-wing/neo-con libelous statements" -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 15:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Jason Russell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This report is regarding Jason Russell, a low-notability filmmaker whose best claim to notability appears to be involvement in the Kony 2012 project. Russell momentarily made tabloid headlines just subsequent to around the time the Kony film went viral, when he had a meltdown of some sort and got himself arrested for some type (reports vary) of public lewd behavior. Because the lewdness apparently involved public nudity, the story was picked up by TMZ.

The BLP problem we have is the clear guidance given by WP:NPF. This sort of thing is not Wikipedia-worthy material in the case of a low-notability person.

People who are relatively unknown [edit]

Policy shortcut: WP:NPF

Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures.

(emphasis from the original)

We can find sufficient notability for Russell's article in his filmmaking - the Kony 2012 project was a fairly big deal that reached many, many eyeballs around the world. We do NOT find Wikipedia-worthy notability in being picked up by the police for public nudity, unless the person is an A-list celebrity or a national-level politician. Therefore, it is clearly not compliant with our BLP policy to include this material in the article.

Other editors have proposed compromise solutions that include removing mention of the nudity and only mentioning the breakdown. The problem with that is, again, notability. We don't mention being picked up by the police in any BLP, unless it is an A-list public figure (which have different standards).

This matter has been brought to N/BLP two times in the past, and it appears to have been a split - having been decided one way on the first occasion and (maybe) another way the second time (it's hard to tell from looking at the discussion, I don't see where there was an especially solid consensus). We need a solid decision here to stave off the persistent recurring edit-warring that has plagued this article for much of its history. Belchfire- TALK 06:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to include a sentence or two mention of the incident, but I feel that, per WP:BLP, we should be focusing on using the strongest sourcing, which is the official police report on the incident, considering that the official report shows that a lot of the sensationalized media on the incident is incorrect and, often, outright fallacious. Silver seren ^C 08:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is some wish to make Wikipedia into the National Enquirer on this person. The incident occurred - but that does not me we make it into a big deal using the most senstional accusations around. Collect ( talk) 12:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been explained to Silver seren and Collect many times but for some reason they are using the same arguments. I don't want to use sensational media/accusations. The nudity is a proven fact from several videos that has many reliable news sources that reported that. There's nothing sensational about it. Regarding the police statement, that should be included, however it keeps getting removed. The police statement is not sensational. Since the incident needs to be mentioned, we are not doing the reader justice by giving them an incomplete overview of what happened. Acoma Magic ( talk) 15:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Acoma, your argument is easily disposed of in the following way:

1. Reliable sourcing is the threshold for inclusion in the encyclopedia, not a guarantee. See WP:BIT.
2. As is stressed repeatedly throughout our guidelines and policies, WP:BLP is an overriding concern.
3. Arriving at WP:NPF, when the word "ONLY" is bolded, this should be seen as an imperative.

In short, Russell's article must be limited to a biographical sketch plus an exposition of the reasons we have an article on him. Because the TMZ report doesn't establish his notability, on its own, it's not fair game and in fact is specifically disallowed. It matters not that the incident is an embarrassment (although it must be observed by editors that we are not here to embarrass him); the incident simply doesn't rise to meet our notability guidelines, and the pre-existence of Russell's article cannot be allowed help it rise further. I hope this helps. Belchfire- TALK 15:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The meltdown is relevant to his notability so you haven't disposed of anything. His meltdown has reached the stage of being a meme. We're not reporting his meltdown through the eyes of TMZ either. Acoma Magic ( talk) 16:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. That really doesn't work. As I explained before, the meltdown would not, by itself, create his notability. WP:NPF draws a circle of exclusion around his notable film work and from there we have to observe the Presumption in Favor of Privacy. If having a public meltdown would not, by itself, merit an article about him (it doesn't), we can't add it to his existing article. It's just gossip cruft, i.e. tabloid journalism. Belchfire- TALK 19:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't create his notability, it adds to it. It's not tabloid journalism. There was tabloid journalism in some reports, however we can easily ignore those. There's plenty of respectable news sources to use. Acoma Magic ( talk) 19:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Category:Ethnically nepotistic football clubs

Yup. Wikipedia really does have a Category:Ethnically nepotistic football clubs - though fortunately with only 4 'members'. Just how many policies does this appear to violate? I suspect the number of policies it doesn't violate is shorter. Anyway, it clearly violates WP:BLP for a start. Can someone with a strong stomach and experience of how one deletes categories please step in to remove it from our sight? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• - List of ethnically nepotistic football clubs - connected/uncited - Youreally can 14:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I edit amost exclusively in soccerball - firstly I have no idea what the title means, but the subject matter is saying that a club in country X only fields players also from country X. It's unrefereced and non-notable - I'll PROD and CfD accordingly. Giant Snowman 14:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
    • soccerball, eh? I knew that there was the whole long editorial dispute over which "football" was football. I didn't realize that you'd gone to the extremes of making up your own names for the sports. ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 21:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• It may or may not be a BLP violation. Calling it such might be a bit extreme. More importantly in this particular instance, it seems like Wikipedia editors making up their own idiotic names — "ethnically nepotistic" — for things that they don't know the actual names for, again. At least we have an article on the Bosman ruling. The actual name for these things is (pre-Bosman) "nationality restrictions", and (post-Bosman) " home-grown player rules"/" home-grown rules" (c.f. Special:Search/Home-grown player rule). A better categorization would be something like Category:Association football teams with home-grown player rules; although these rules appear to be at national association or confederation rather than at team level, and so a yet better categorization still wouldn't be of teams, albeit that it wouldn't be a very useful category and would be better done in explanatory prose in one of those redlinked articles. Uncle G ( talk) 21:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Um, apart from anything else, it is making unsourced assertions about the ethnicity of team members - which is a WP:BLP violation. And asserting that anyone has benefited from 'nepotism' with no source is also a BLP violation. Actually, per WP:BLP I could have simply deleted the lot: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"... - need I go on? I raised it here, rather than the multiple other places that could have also dealt with it because it seemed the simplest way to handle it. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. It's making assertions about hiring policies of team managers, and it's using an idiotic made up name for the thing instead of the real name. Try not to attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by Association football editors not knowing their subject and overreaching themselves to the extents that they make up bogus names like "ethnically nepotistic". This is straightforward original research — a novel, made-up-by-a-Wikipedia-editor, thing. It's easy to fix, because the thing in this case has an actual name outwith Wikipedia and is well documented. Just rename the article and use the plenteous sources that exist (There are papers in law journals about it.) to make it about home-grown player rules. Writing is your way to deal with this. Uncle G ( talk) 08:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment:. When I mentioned creating Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space I also mentioned we may need an Ethnicity: Categories and content type guideline. We may also need a sexual orientaion and religon one. They also may be combined a bit. There was discussion on the template talk page but that may be the wrong forum to discuss a new guideline or policy. These issues can then be discussed on the guideline talk pages and instead of forums all over WMF. It is even bleeding over to commons and meta that I noticed.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "we may need an Ethnicity: Categories and content type guideline". Like WP:BLPCAT you mean? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes. A section in BLP may be too small to have a forum for it on its own talk page as well as ethnicity covers dead persons, teams like above, etc, etc. I also emptied the Ethnically nepotistic football clubs category. Someone may wish to MfD it. I don't have the time, nor do I care.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 00:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Deleted.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 04:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Related AfD. Giant Snowman 16:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If I understand the policies involved I think they are neither nepotism nor about ethnicity. When I read "ethnically nepotistic" I assumed we would have an article on a soccer club dominated by Armenians living in the United States who consistently place Armenians, especially the nephews (if we are going for the original meaning of the term) or sons of current players. I am getting the impression that the "home-grown" rules are more about nationality than ethnicity, and that they do not work to favor the close relatives of those presently on the team. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephen M. Cohen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sex.com (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has been added to this BLP by UserScottjduffy, (his first two edits since eighteen months) and copy pasted to the Sex.com article -

Since then, Cohen has continued to avoid paying the $67 million judgement, and claims poverty. Courts have found in Kremen's favor several times since 2006, with evidence that seven individuals and twelve companies were used to help Cohen hide the money, including his brother, his daughter, his ex-wife and also his former lawyer. A court case against his brother is ongoing.

• It is supported by this primary - v Michael Joseph Cohen|publisher=Google Scholar|date=2012-07-17|accessdate=2012-08-01 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3860426389785992086&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr|title=Kremen v Michael Joseph Cohen|publisher=Google Scholar|date=2012-07-17|accessdate=2012-08-01 - According to WP:BLPPRIMARY primary sources, which can be used to provide extra background, but should not be used on their own to source claims, is this source compliant with en wikipedia BLP policy for contentious content additions? - Youreally can 06:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  It's a primary source to the California court system so it is reliable and, while not preferred, allowable. Youreallycan, you need to take a step away from this article as you have in the past been unable to accurately discern (particularly on this page) what is and is not allowable on the biography of a living person for which they are known not because they are famous but because the are infamous.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 22:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  Its not a recommended source at all for a content addition to a bio of a living person. - Please don't replace it and please don;t continue to comment about me rather that the issue. Youreally can 00:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  You are the issue though. Because you cannot seem to accept any changes to this page that point out the subject is of ill repute. A judicial order is a reliable source. It is compliant with BLPPRIMARY, despite whatever you may think.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 00:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  Actually - you are the issue - have you read WP:BLPPRIMARY ? - Youreally can 00:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  It says to...to support assertions about a living person". I do not see it as an assertion in this case, so the content should be allowed. The content added is simply a summarization of the content of the document which appears to be relevant and perhaps useful to the article at hand.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 00:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  Thats right - - "exercise caution" and "not to use court records" - Youreally can 00:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  It says more than "[do] not...use court records", though. It adds "to support assertions about a living person". I don't see any assertions in the content

  Since then, Cohen has continued to avoid paying the $67 million judgement, and claims poverty. Courts have found in Kremen's favor several times since 2006, with evidence that seven individuals and twelve companies were used to help Cohen hide the money, including his brother, his daughter, his ex-wife and also his former lawyer. A court case against his brother is ongoing.

  that is an assertion regarding Cohen, certainly not one we have already sourced.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 00:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  I have now found secondary sources that report on this content, so the judicial order is not needed.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 00:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article in detail or at the specific allegations, but YRC is right about BLPPRIMARY:

Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source ...

The reason we require reliable secondary sources is to make sure Wikipedians don't collect negative material from courts that no one else deems worthy of publication (e.g. allegations made during a divorce, and similar). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• In the article the court document (as a primary source) was being used to support the fact that the court case is effectively still ongoing. That the wording in it RE Cohen is particularly unflattering is really a sideline. A primary source being used to support the fact that a legal jurisdiction is still dealing with the subject, when the entire reason the subject has an article (and also the reason sex.com has one) is because of the subjects criminal actions. The article has plenty of secondary sources on his criminality, this particular aspect of his criminality (Avoiding the judgement/hiding assets) was at the time (AGF on the part of the editor who added it) the best source. Removing it wouldnt change the tone of the article or the depiction of the subject, thankfully Ryulong has found better sources to effectively make the above irrelevant - but that should not prevent Wikipedia from reporting in an article 'X is a criminal (supported by multiple secondary sources) X is still in court (supported by primary source)'. While the argument that it should be removed due to identifying info on the subject (address etc) is a valid concern, no such info was included in the source. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Also, I thought that the nature of the content (made by the judge in the case) would have made it a suitable source, as the judge is meant to be impartial.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 09:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Provided there are no other issues with it (e.g. UNDUE, etc) then a filing by the court can reasonably be used as a source to support assertions about the proceeding themselves. —  Coren  ^(talk) 12:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thats a matter of opinion - show me the policy/guideline that supports your claim please? - We are here to report what other reliable sources have reported about notable issues - if no one has reported then its not our job to report either - Youreally can 12:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Reliable sources have already decided the sex.com & Cohen shenanigans is a notable issue. What you now seem to be arguing is that specific aspects of the ongoing legal issues surrounding it, are not notable because that specific aspect has not been commented on by secondary sources. (Even though in the above example it has) That seems to be a distortion of how notability is applied. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Even if it were a matter of "opinion", YRC, it would then also be a normal content dispute. Edit warring over it is problematic. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wording changed per NPOV. Other individuals identified (wife etc.) did not need to be here - the BLP is about the single person. Collect ( talk) 17:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a BLP problem and an edit war on this article. Wmbowersatty ( talk · contribs), a new editor, is trying to turn the article into a promotional piece claiming personal knowledge of the subject. I've reverted twice (the second time after trimming the article and adding references), and one other editor reverted. Your help is appreciated. Drmies ( talk) 14:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisted. MastCell  ^Talk 20:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to bring editors' attention to a serious issue in the article for John Sullivan (Oklahoma). Information has been added to this article that appears to violate Wikipedia's guidelines for biographical articles. Specifically, a section has been created titled "Criminal record", which appears in the contents list of the article. The section details allegations made about the arrest record of the Representative, made by a former opponent. It also includes information published by the media regarding his arrest record. While I understand that his arrest record is notable because it was subject to media attention during his campaigns in 2004 and onwards, after his opponent made statements about it, however I do not think that 20-year-old arrests should require their own section in his biographical article. Nor do I think that the details of each arrest are necessary here. I see that WP:BLPCRIME notes that for "relatively unknown" people criminal acts should only be included if there was a conviction, should not a similar guideline apply for more well-known individuals if the events were a long time ago, and only notable because of allegations by a political opponent? In this case, the Representative was never convicted of a crime, so surely the section should not be called "Criminal record". At the least, I think it would help to move this information out of the "Personal life" section and remove or change the section heading. I've brought this issue here, rather than removing or changing the information, since I work for Representative Sullivan. In the interests of openness, I have also placed a similar message on the article's "Talk" page. I would appreciate if editors here could provide a unbiased review of this section and make such changes as are necessary. Thank you in advance. -- EdwardDC ( talk) 16:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the information which did not have footnotes. While I do not think the information is super relevant or important to the article, I don't think it is a BLP issue, WP:WELLKNOWN clearly applies, but the arrests are documented. Additionally they are for very minor offenses, which is identified in the text, so its not like we are damaging his reputation. (The fact that they are so minor, however may be sufficient to say that they are irrelevant and may be removed, but that is not a BLP issue) Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

On further review, one of the arrests is for assault of a police officer, which is more major, but it is referenced. However it was also as a minor. I look forward to others input here to see how the various policies interact Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Looking at this profile concerning the current election from the Washington Times, much as I would like to say this sort of thing ought to go, it appears to continue to be of current concern. Mangoe ( talk) 16:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not actully go into the sources, just what was in the article. But if the article is true and these minor (and minor!) offenses played in the press at the time and affected the election then they should be included, but probably only under the election discussion itself and how the charges impacted the election rather than being called out in a special section. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone commenting here so far. If I may, I'd like to clarify a bit more why I see this as a BLP issue. First of all, although the reporting from 2004 (when this was brought up by Representative Sullivan's opponent) characterized all of the incidents as "arrests", the Congressman's attorneys, local sheriff and local chief of police confirmed to him that those were not classified as arrests. In the case of the assault and battery case, no charges were ever brought. I am not aware of any reporting about this, but nor is there much in the public record about it to begin with.

As far as I am aware, the arrest record has not been raised in any recent articles that would show it is a relevant issue to the public. The Washington Times profile linked to by Mangoe is new to me, but seems to rely on earlier reporting which mischaracterized tickets as arrests and looks to be based on an older profile (see this Townhall one, last updated 2010), likely just updated for 2012 with no correction or removal of old information.

In any case, I agree with The Red Pen of Doom that this information really should belong with the discussion of his election campaigns and not in the section discussing his personal life. Thank you. -- EdwardDC ( talk) 19:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to unwatch this page and noticed this thread. Witness Lyman Hoffman, wherein someone decided that a conviction for drunken driving was "more encyclopedic" than the fact that he's currently among the five longest-serving members in the history of the Alaska Legislature. The user who added that information appears to have added similar information regarding a number of other politicians. In Hoffman's instance, there was a conviction (and while an incumbent officeholder), and this was reported by a RS (radio station KINY's news department). Still, I find it undue weight, but that will probably depend upon me to do something about it, along with the hundreds of other articles needing attention and languishing in the queue. RadioKAOS ( talk) 21:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have encountered a problem regarding a BLP, but it is very sensitive and I would rather not cause a Streisand effect. Where can I resolve this? -- Jprg1966  ^(talk) 17:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia:OTRS is the best way for such problems. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Email a trusted admin; email the WP:OVERSIGHT team; or email via Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject), as appropriate. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 17:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you can close this now. -- Jprg1966  ^(talk) 17:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ed Miliband (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The BLP is a WP:GA - and has been altered to describe him as a Non observant Jew - without discussion or any additional reliable citations - Youreally can 22:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Diff in question. There's no meaningful difference between "not religious" and "non-observant". Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 22:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it common for reliable sources to describe Ed Miliband as a non observant Jew? - Youreally can 22:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If they describe him as non-religious, then non-observant is a perfectly acceptable paraphrase. I don't think it's better, but I also don't think it's worse, or problematic in the slightest. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 22:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

YRC has a valid point - the wording should precisely reflect reliable sources here, especially considering the background of the BLP on this noticeboard in the past. Collect ( talk) 22:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, we're supposed to paraphrase and use our own words. Is there some connotative difference between non-observant and non-religious? From an outside perspective, I could see an argument made that "non observant" is more NPOV than "non religious" because because the latter might imply that he is somehow opposed to the religion, while the former simply states that he chooses not to observe the religious practices. Ditch ∝ 02:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there's no difference. What that means is that it's okay that the change was reverted. But it also means that there was no reason to bring it to BLPN in the first place. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 05:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Above: There's no meaningful difference between "not religious" and "non-observant". Oh really? To me, the former encompasses atheism (although it doesn't imply it), whereas the latter suggests that the person skips the rituals often associated with his beliefs. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this assertion rooted in knowledge about Judaism, or is it supposition based on what the words suggest to you? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 00:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it may be rooted in knowledge of the English language. Formerip ( talk) 00:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, indeed -- but since that evidently isn't sufficient to decide what the best expression is in this context I was also curious regarding knowledge about Judaism. But I'm not sure there's a live issue at this point about how to edit the article. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The disputed addition has been removed and not replaced so no there is no, as you call it, "live issue" - Your assertion that you dispute the rejection of the the desired alteration is somehow "rooted in knowledge about Judaism" - I return to my original rejection of your POV - Is it common for reliable sources to describe Ed Miliband as a non observant Jew? - - no its not - its also clearly not as User:Nomo claims, a perfectly acceptable paraphrase and its important to focus on these POV desired additions and clarify them as examples for the wider project - Youreally can 20:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan—in my opinion, "nonobservant" and "nonreligious" mean the same thing—in relation to Jews. These are locutions that are both used. Hoary does not seem to be considering these terms in relation to Jews. Nomoskedasticity is making a valid point when he asks Hoary if his/her assertion is "rooted in knowledge about Judaism". Hoary makes reference in his post to "beliefs" but "beliefs" are not what make a Jew. You will even find in our Who is a Jew? article no suggestion that a Jew is a person who holds a particular belief. The 4 sources in our Ed Miliband article relating to him being Jewish do not use either of the two terms considered above. We have this source, this source, this source, and this source. The two considered terms, or variants on them—"not religious" and "non-observant"—are not found in the sources relating to Jewishness, in our Ed Miliband article. I think these terms all mean the same thing. Again—we are speaking about these terms in relation to Jews. Halacha is what is being referred to. All of these terms (including the variants) are conveying that the Jewish person described by these terms is not observant of halacha. If you feel these terms mean or imply different things can you please describe those distinctions? Bus stop ( talk) 22:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Miliband himself is quoted in one of those citations as saying , "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense." - that is close enough to our comment of Miliband is Jewish but not religious for me. - We should take great care not to assert a not citable/not commonly used status to his Jewishness/to his faith that is not there and imo. non observant Jew does that, where the detail we have now is easily supportable from the subjects own comments. Whereas, .... is a Marxist Atheist non observant Jew ^{citation needed} - seems a bit at odds, wouldn't his secular upbringing and his lifetime of atheism make the non observant bit redundant? - this is really just my own personal query , as far as the article goes - Miliband is not widely reported as a non observant Jew - and we shouldn't either - he is widely reported and has himself commented that he is not religious and that is how en Wikipeda should/and is reporting about him also - apart from times like this when drive by POV accounts/IP addresses change it to what they think/prefer. Youreally can 08:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan—can you consider the word "secular" for our sentence? I think it means the same as "nonobservant" and "nonreligious". Consider this source: "Secular Jewish candidate Ed Miliband beats his older brother to win leadership of Britain's Labor party." [13] Bus stop ( talk) 20:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider secular unless multiple mainstream sources (a preponderance) were using secular to describe - him . or even better if he used it to describe himself - apparently and this is just my personal interest web search results - secular Jew is interpreted differently depending on who is doing the interpretation. - we have his own comment to report so its by the bye as to using other labels - unless widely used. Youreally can 05:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Above: Nomoskedasticity is making a valid point when he asks Hoary if his/her assertion is "rooted in knowledge about Judaism". Hoary makes reference in his post to "beliefs" but "beliefs" are not what make a Jew. You will even find in our Who is a Jew? article no suggestion that a Jew is a person who holds a particular belief. The second sentence of the article " What is a Jew?" appears to raise the question of beliefs (via "religious"); and apparently related words such as "faith", "principles" and "tenets" recur throughout the article. (The article does indeed explicitly rule out the matter of belief, in "Religious definitions: Halakhic perspective"; but this is just one part of "Religious definitions".) Anyway, the article (understandably and properly) concentrates on Jewish and historically significant ideas of "Jew" (and, presumably, words of other languages regarded as equivalent to this). My comments weren't rooted in knowledge about Judaism. Used within an article in English about a British politician (and not about law, etc), "Jew" is just another English word, and thus its meanings are those determined by (A) practice (however some may deplore these meanings) rather than (B) anybody's dictate. If EM's attitude to religion is what I think it is (and I could be wrong), and if you call him "a non-observant [[What is a Jew|Jew]]", then you'll be well understood by some readers but for many others you're either inviting misunderstanding or expecting a read through a (necessarily) long and complex web page. -- Hoary ( talk) 07:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• For the umpteenth time, as the Milibands get dragged into this over and over again. When a major personality has NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, to do with his/her religion (any religion) and never identifies with it in any way at any time, it is then totally irrelevant and one should wonder why it is that some people love sticking the label "Jews this that and the other" where it looks highly suspicious and more than anything that a NPOV encyclopedia should be doing. When in doubt, leave it out. There are more important features about Miliband than his supposed Jewish ancestry that he does not practice, preach or care about in the least so why do some editors here so carry on about it? This discussion is just a waste of time. IZAK ( talk) 13:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, good point. But I suppose there's a viewpoint that Wikipedia should cater for the concerns, no matter how bizarre, of its readers. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Hoary, it's the job of editors to act maturely and not make WP into another version of yellow journalism or worse, with taints of Der Sturmer, to please the crooked projections and perceptions of twisted minds. If someone wants to state matter of factly, citing a WP:RS that the Milibands have a Jewish parent or grandparent (as many WP articles do about subjects), nu, that might not be that bad, although that too is not required. BUT, to state that someone is a "non-practicing XYX" or "non-observant Jew" is a value JUDGEMENT that is NOT encyclopedic. Biographies do not say about subjects that their subjects "did not practice their faith" that is basically WP:LIBEL, and how can anyone judge the religiosity of a subject? Will they count the number of times he has gone to synagogue, if he had a bris or barmitzvah? Often-times even when marrying a gentile many Jews remain members of synagogues or just plain feel connected inside to Judaism and it is not the job of WP EDITORS to get into those kinds of value and moral judgments by playing God. Unless, of course, they are just here to violate WP:POINT and WP:NOTSOAPBOX and want to smear and attack a politician because it's only simple antisemitism at work. That's why it's always good policy to just back of from making judgments about any major figure's religiosity. WP is not a " father confessor" nor is it a " religious tribunal" to measure how "observant or not" anyone is. What would be next, that a subject is deemed "not religious/observant or even secular/atheistic or cool or with it enough, or just out of it and boring" by what junk journalism may write out there on such topics? It's obviously just NOT encyclopedic, because it's both intellectual and literal trash. To repeat, articles do say that "so and so was of Jewish parentage/ancestry" and MUST cite a source for that, especially if so and so has never admitted to it or never talks about it, but editors must NEVER make judgements about how "observant" or religious or non-religious anyone is, because it stinks and has no place in a WP:NPOV encyclopedia. Thanks, IZAK ( talk) 03:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent)To say that someone is not observant is not quite an insult, but it's very close. Check out what the thesaurus says about "inobservance":

“

absentmindedness, carelessness, default, delinquency, dereliction, disconformity, disregard, disregardfulness, distraction, failure, flightiness, flippancy, frivolousness, giddiness, heedlessness, inadvertence, inadvertency, inattention, inattentiveness, inconsideration, incuriosity, indifference, laxity, levity, lightmindedness, neglect, negligence, nonadherence, noncompliance, nonconformance, nonconformity, nonfeasance, nonfulfillment, nonobservance, nonperformance, obliviousness, omission, oversight, regardlessness, shallowness, slight, superficiality, thoughtlessness, unalertness, unawareness, unconsciousness, unheedfulness, unintentiveness, unmindfulness, unobservance, unwariness, unwatchfulness

”

Likewise, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary says that being observant means to be "careful in observing (as rites, laws, or customs)". The American Heritage Dictionary says that you're observant if you're "Diligent in observing a law, custom, duty, or principle", whereas inobservance is defined as "Lack of heed or attention; disregard." It's much more neutral to say a person is not religious than to say they're not observant (the latter connotes a sloppy or lazy religiosity). 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 10:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be an ongoing dispute over whether to include an article written by the subject about race and other things and also a blog entry from the MMfA by an un named staff writer. This has nothing to do with RS and everything to do with undue weight and if the material is trivial. Could uninvolved eyes please chime in on the talk page where it is discussed in a few sections now. Thank you, -- Mollskman ( talk) 14:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked into this, and it turns out that we have both a primary source to confirm what Sowell said and a secondary source to indicate its notability. I do not see any potential for a BLP violation, but I'd rather err on the side of caution, so I'm leaving out that paragraph for now.

Please do look into this and make some sort of ruling, so that we can either restore the paragraph or reconsider what can be salvaged from it. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 18:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You looked into this? You are the one arguing for inclusion! Please explain why you feel a blog written by an un-named staffer to be worthy of inclusion here.-- Mollskman ( talk) 18:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be good to be able to get a final idea as to the value and reliability of MMfA. We've had numerous discussions across a number of forums, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus in either direction. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 20:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

MMfA like Newsbusters reports on hundreds of items weekly, all of which are citical of libs or cons. There has to be some standard to determine weight, less articles become dumping grounds for every partisan beef that one side has against the other. A simple standard which can be easily applied is that an event must have weight established by mainstream sources before even considering the criticism from these hyper-partisan sources. Arzel ( talk) 23:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Mollskman said up front that "This has nothing to do with RS and everything to do with undue weight and if the material is trivial" so any talk about the source being unreliable is just a distraction. I'd like to hear someone explain why they believe this is a BLP violation as opposed to a minor content dispute. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 00:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Do not assume that Mollskmman's issue is the only one. It is an issue of RS as well for many of us. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 01:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The source is grossly misused - and makes a claim not actually present in the editorial. When I sought to use the actual words in the editorial, I was summarily reverted. Also the claim that some backed the "comparison" is inapt as no such direct "comparison" is in the editorial. The closest the editorial comes is that it says the Reichstag gave Hitler excessive powers, but it does not say in any language that Obama is like Hitler. Nor did Palin say "Obama is like Hitler" - she said that the BP fund was unconstitutional. Such political silly season edits are beneath contempt. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be evident to any thinking person that the editorial in question implicitly compares Obama to Hitler (and to Vladimir Lenin, for good measure). Whether that editorial deserves mention in Sowell's biography, or whether Media Matters is a suitable source for a biographical article, are separate questions.

If the editorial has not attracted any notice outside the usual partisan outlets, then it probably isn't notable enough for mention in Sowell's biography. It is arguably relevant to describe Sowell's role as a sometimes rhetorically extreme partisan polemicist, but this particular instance it seems like the editorial in question hasn't really attracted much notice outside the insulated partisan blogosphere.

I'm not especially comfortable using Media Matters (or any such partisan website) as a source in a BLP, either. MastCell  ^Talk 16:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? I have read and reread it now and do not find the "implicit" comparison there. I have reasonably good eyesight for such things, and I consider comments like "any thinking person" to be contemptible on any Wikipedia noticeboard. Perhaps you should reread what WP:BLP considers proper when making "implicit" charges - last I checked, the reliable source must back up the claim precisely and fully. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• - Wikipedia Media Matters article - mediamatters website - yes - its a strongly opinionated organization. - Youreally can 16:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there's a sourcing issue if all we have is MMfA. However, there are other sources to show notability:

Alan Colmes, while nominally liberal, is notable and reported on this editorial. [14] [15]

Sarah Palin, who is notable and non-liberal, endorsed the editorial. [16]

Breitbart, also notable and non-liberal, noticed and reported. [17]

Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert, notable and non-liberal, endorsed it. [18]

Washingon Monthly, notable and non-partisan, reported on it. [19]

Washington Post, notable and non-partisan, reported on it. [20]

I could go on. Do I need to? Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 06:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been solved twice

In the first dispute resolution:

*Acceptible Use MMfA is clearly an organization with a political slant. However, that does not mean that their opinion cannot be quoted in a Wikipedia article. Political-based articles routinely cite sources which have a political stance (e.g., NRA, PETA, NAACP). There have been at least 25 reliable source discussions about MMfA, and the general conclusion of the RS forums is that the organization cannot be used as a source of news, but that their opinion can be cited. The text cited above makes it clear that MMfA is a liberal organization, and that the comment in question is their opinion. The actual article comparing Obama's actions to Hitler's is referenced in Investor's Business Daily, which is a reliable source of news, and the paragraph also gives the opinion of two people supporting Sowell's publication of the article, thus ensuring the commentary is NPOV. Based on this, inclusion of MMfA is acceptible. Debbie W. 03:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And in the second one.

This discussion has gone WAY off track. The dispute resolution does not address conduct matters - and this discussion has been very unproductive. If a discussion has taken place regarding the use of a source on the RSN and a clear result was not achieved, you can ask for more input with a community RFC. Yelling at each other is not the way to resolve this. From the discussion here, it appears that the reliability of a the MMfA source has been confirmed - so the key here is attributing the point of view to MMfA - you cannot exclude a significant viewpoint from an article just because you don't like it. That's not how Wikipedia works, and is a serious conduct matter. I suggest that the discussed material be included as long as it is attributed to MMfA, and everyone here gets on with their lives and does something more productive. Steven Zhang 02:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo ( talk) 06:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that the column does not compare Hitler to Obama other than what one person sees as an "implicit" comparison (which I regard as simmply meaning "A person I do not like used "Hitler" within five hundred words of the word "Obama" but did not actually 'compare' the two.". I further consider saying that a direct comparison was made is thus a violation of WP:BLP as well as of WP:V in the first place. Further that the claims that people endorsed the "comparison" when it is clear they did not do any such thing (that is - they agreed with the column, but as the comparison is not explicit in the column, it is also thus improper to say that people who agree with the colum "endorse" a "comparison" per WP:BLP and per WP:V. MMfA's opinions should be clearly labelled as opinions. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Come on, now. The article in question is entitled "Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?" The first three paragraphs talk about how Hitler and Vladimir Lenin extended their authority. The remainder of article talks about how Obama is purportedly extending his authority. The author draws an implicit comparison between Hitler/Lenin and Obama. There is no reason to mention Hitler or Lenin in this context other than to compare them with Obama. This is the sort of reading comprehension typically tested at the grade-school level. MastCell  ^Talk 17:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? As I read the article, and I assure you I am a competent reader of simple English, I find your "come on now" to be an inane sort of arguemnt. Your assertion of "implicit" comparison is one of the weakest reasons for making an explicit claim that the coomparison was made known to man. You could say "MMfA said the comparison was made" but asserting in Wikipedia's voice that others supported the "comparison" when the sources do not say they supported any "comparison" but that they agreed with the column as a whole is ludicrously weak. The last part whould say the people agreed with the column, not that they agreed with an "implicit comparison seen by MMfA and not by others." And the "comparison" bit is clearly opinion which per WP:BLP must be cited as opinion, same as for all such articles. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 19:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not expressed nearly any of the opinions which you attribute to me. I do not think the material belongs in the article, much less in "Wikipedia's voice". That should be evident from a very cursory reading of my comments in this thread. I think it's silly to pretend that the article doesn't make a comparison when it obviously does, but I've said my piece on that subject. MastCell  ^Talk 20:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

CD, from the noticeboard header: "It is not a place that issues binding decisions on content - we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy." Your first link is from a now-banned user, your second is a premature closure that does not address the issue at hand, especially the lack of consensus as I demonstrated with my research. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 12:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not binding but the consensus for reliability is pretty clear (and again for the nth time the block wasn't relevant to the discussion). That aside, the second obviously did address it just as the first did. Even an outside editor here agrees with it. The fact is this issue has been over for a long time. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 23:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for reliability? Can you please point it out for us? Note, again, DRN is "not a place that issues binding decisions on content." Thargor Orlando ( talk) 01:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Improper claims and improper sources

The claim is that anything which is an "implicit comparison" should be described as a "comparison" even when people reading the column do not see the comparison (20/20 eyesight for reading-beween-the-lines is needed to see the "comparison." Then people are stated to endorse the "comparison" when they only state they endorse the column. Lastly, one of the sources used is Gohmert Endorses Sowell's Hitler Comparison an op-ed blog post titled Gohmert Endorses Sowell's Hitler Comparison used to state that title as a factual claim when it is obviously the opinion of the writer and hence is improperly used for a "fact claim" under WP:BLP. [21] shows a blanket reversion of my attempt at a reasonably NPOV claim - but the ones who read-between-the-lines seem determined to paint Palin, Sowell et al with the "He said the Hitler word in the same column as Obama therefore he is evil" brush <g>. BLPs are supposed to use claims directly supported by factual sources, not to make opinions into facts. Collect ( talk) 13:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that this should not be considered a comparison. "He compared Obama to Hitler" without context implies declaring Obama to be as evil as Hitler or to have done things similar to the things that Hitler is primarily known for. Even if the article literally compares some of Obama's actions to some of Hitler's actions, declaring that to be a comparison to Hitler--in the sense that most people would understand as a comparison to Hitler rather than in a literal sense--requires interpretation. Furthermore, in politics, this kind of misunderstanding is often purposely spread. Someone may say "a guy I don't like compared Obama to Hitler" because it is in some sense literally true, so he can't be accused of lying, yet he also knows that he is giving a false impression of "a guy I don't like thinks Obama is as evil as Hitler". Ken Arromdee ( talk) 15:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be definite agreement, at least, that the criticism should stay in the article even if we cannot agree on what sources to use. This is a key example of why using MMfA is problematic and why there's no consensus for or against its use. Should the section simply be reworded to say something like this?:

Thomas Sowell wrote an article in 2010 called 'Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?', about the BP oil spill escrow fund. [22] The article opened with details regarding Adolf Hitler and the Nazi rise to power, which was criticized by the Democratic National Committee as 'ridiculous if it weren’t so vile,' noting that 'it deserves to be marginalized.' Sarah Palin praised the article, recommending it to her followers on Twitter, prompting the President of People for the American Way, Michael B. Keegan, whether Palin 'agree[d] with Sowell that President Obama’s work to hold BP accountable for the worst oil spill in American history can be compared to the actions of Hitler?' [23] US Representative Louie Goehmert, a Republican from Texas, endorsed and recommended Sowell column on the floor of the US House of Representatives following the publication of the article. [24]

This allows for all the relevant information, doesn't rely on bad or partisan sources, and seems to encapsualate the issue in a more accurate, more neutral way. Thoughts? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 16:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Fails to include the notable opinion of MMfA, yet includes hyperpartisan Palin and Gohmert foo. Shocking example of bias to include these individuals but not MMfA. -- Scjessey ( talk) 23:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

MMfA is inappropriate in this context, and there doesn't seem to be consensus for use in either direction. Sarah Palin, whether you like it or not, is a key political player in the United States. Louie Gohmert, whether you like it or not, is an elected official who took to the House floor to highlight the article. Both people's criticisms were highlighted by Politico, yet MMfA's "notable opinion" couldn't find its way into the text. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 02:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced this is good. The problem is that "comparing to Hitler" is taken by the average person to mean more than just "the word 'Hitler' appears in the comparison". It is normally taken to mean "compared them to the worst of Hitler's evils". And political pundits just love to deliberately confuse the former with the latter.

Sentences such as "agree[d] with Sowell that President Obama’s work to hold BP accountable for the worst oil spill in American history can be compared to the actions of Hitler?" are examples of such deliberate confusion. It is literally true that Sowell compared Obama's actions to Hitler's actions, but phrasing it that way implies, to most people, "he compared Obama's actions to mass murder" and "he thinks Obama's actions are as evil as Hitler's actions". The first of these implications certainly isn't true, and the second probably isn't (and if it is, it's an analysis by a political opponent, not an objective fact about the text). Ken Arromdee ( talk) 15:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's a direct quote and not something conjured up. Not sure how to fix that. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 19:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it depends on why you're using it.

If you're using it to show that Sowell compared Obama to Hitler, there's no reason for the quote at all, you can just go directly to Sowell's article and summarize it in a manner which makes it clear that it is a Hitler comparison in a literal sense but is not what many people would think of as a Hitler comparison.

If you're using it to show the existence of controversy over the comparison to Hitler, then you need to keep the quote as a piece of notable criticism, but presumably the controversy isn't one-sided and there must be people on Sowell's side who have pointed out that the comparison to Hitler did not imply that the two acts were of similar severity. You could quote one of them for the other side of the controversy. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 14:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Scjessey has now asserted that this discussion either does not exist, or that it backs his edit [25] (edit summary: Reverted 1 edit by Collect (talk): Rv edit based on misleading edit summary. using TW) and his comment on my UT page: No such discussion exists on BLP/N, so basically you are using lies to push your POV.

I rather think this discussion exists here, and that it does not back his edit which makes the "fact" statement that Sowell "has been criticized for various remarks such as a comparison he made between President Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler " Will others please so inform him? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He now accuses me of lies, of being unable to be "rational", of Wikilawyering, of lying that this discussion says opinions must be so labelled, of Palin et al being "idiot"s etc. Long screed, in fact. So now this is at WP:WQA. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've taken one shot at this myself [26] to illustrate that I think the solution to these things is to let the subject speak in his own voice. If you're going to mention an editorial someone wrote, then give people the gist of what it says, for better or worse; don't just cherry-pick the controversy without the context. Wnt ( talk) 20:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Reverted. Deleting any mention of the Hitler comparison leaves the left-wing sources looking like they overreacted to nothing. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have the interest to fight for a sentence here, but note I did not remove the mention of Hitler. Wnt ( talk) 22:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard Quest (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - - Censorship of Wikipedia Entry?

Richard Quest is a very well known public person. He is a high profile CNN presenter.

In 2008 Mr Quest was arrested in Central Park New York, (Redacted). He was in the park outside the hours of curfew for the park. The matter was reported in the mainstream media (but not CNN).

I believe this item of information to be in the public interest, and therefore not defamatory. Also, a critical defense to defamation is that the reported item be true, and this event clearly is true. Also, Mr. Quest is a public figure, therefore items such as this are allowed to be disseminated in respect of him.

On Tuesday 31 July, I edited the Wikipedia entry for Mr Quest, so that it includes this information. The new entry was done is a way which followed Wikipedia guidelines. It included a link to a reputable newspaper report of the incident.

However, soon after this, another user had removed the reference to Mr Quest's arrest.

I believe that not allowing this item to appear on Wikipedia amounts to censorship, and I question the motives of a person wishing to act in this way.

Clearly, CNN does not want this information appearing in relation to such a prominent figure in their organization. However, other prominent news organizations have been able to print this, including Australia's Sydney Morning Herald. Australia has well developed defamation laws, however the Sydney Morning Herald has been able to report this for the past 4 years.

If anyone else has an opinion on this I would welcome their thoughts.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dleau ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dleau, welcome to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (section)!

I note that this was already discussed on the talk page of the article back in May. I will quote some of what User:Bbb23 said there:

WP:BLPCRIME states that we should not include material in a BLP article about a crime the person may have committed unless the person has been convicted. Here, there is no indication that Quest was convicted of anything. In addition, the details reported by The Post and Huffington are more properly confined to tabloids, and not to Wikipedia (Huffington happily alludes to this stuff as "lurid details"). He was not arrested for any sexual offense or charged with any sexual offense. Thus, to insert those details is WP:COATRACK and a further BLP violation.

Put more simply, this is crap about a minor contretemps that occurred four years ago that is more noteworthy for the "lurid details" than for anything else. It negatively impacts a BLP, it has little or no relevance to his Wikipedia article, and it cannot be included.

The person asking about this on the article talk page seemingly agreed with Bbb23, and was happy to let the matter rest there. No-one else commenting on the article talk page disagreed. Do you disagree, and if so, why? Just a quick note, something not being defamatory (for example, because it is true) is not sufficient to meet the requirements of Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy. The policy does not exist just to stop Wikipedia or Wikipedians being sued for defamation.

I've also redacted part of your post here, as per that policy. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 08:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Richard Quest is a very well known public person. Really? I'd never heard of him.
2. this event clearly is true. An event can't be true. An account of it may or may not be true, but please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.
3. It included a link to a reputable newspaper report of the incident. No. It included a link to an article about the alleged incident in a newspaper that indeed is normally reputable, but the source of this particular article is partly unspecified, partly specified as the New York Post. The reputation of the New York Post is less than stellar.
4. I question the motives of a person wishing to act in this way. Oh, I quite often question Wikipedia editors' motives myself, but I avoid blurting out these questions. Please read WP:AGF. As for this person's reasons, they're specified as WP:BLPCRIME per talk. "Per talk" is Wikipedia-speak for "as explained in Talk:Richard Quest".

-- Hoary ( talk) 08:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes , well said Hoary - The Bio should be semi protected indefinately to stop this tittikating misdomenor detail from repeatedly being inserted. Youreally can 09:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The cited "WP:BLPCRIME" actually says only to consider not reporting an accusation, and only for a person not well-known. That said, it's hard to argue for something that is so sketchily covered that that substance wasn't tested, the charges weren't filed, and the follow-up nonexistent. For all I know he merely needed to be persuaded out of reporting about the wrong thing. Wnt ( talk) 18:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In reply to comments that Richard Quest's biography should not contain any details of his arrest in New York and possession of methamphetamine, I draw your attention to the wikipedia entry of Australian journalist Peter Lloyd. Peter Lloyd was arrested in Singapore for possession of a "small" amount of the drug "ice", which is methamphetamine. He was subsequently convicted in a Singapore court for such possession. This arrest and conviction is clearly indicated in Peter Lloyd's wikipedia page. Did Peter Lloyd do anything more serious than Richard Quest? One (Lloyd) was arrested in a country which has a very low tolerance towards drug possession (Singapore) with a "small" amount of methamphetamine, but because of that country's stance on drugs, this arrest must appear on his wikipedia entry. Another (Quest) is arrested in possession of the same thing (a "small" amount of methamphetamine) but since the charges relating to such possession are dropped pending his participation in a rehabilitation scheme, that fact must not appear on his wikipedia entry. To me, this unfair for Peter Lloyd. Also there is another more sinister issue involved here. Richard Quest is a highly paid reporter for a major news provider (CNN). Interestingly, I have not been able to find any mention of this issue on any CNN site. The fact that this is NOT widely reported, as required by wikipedia rules, stems from the very fact that the subject is a highly visible member of such major news organisation. Such news organisations are VERY concerned about their outward appearance, as they need to maintain a clean image to protect their massive advertising revenues. Their massive advertising revenues allow them to allocate substantial funds to maintaining such clean image. Wikipedia does have to be very careful in what it writes about living persons, however if such living person is a member of the very sector (news sector/media) that is charged with reporting such matters, and the organisation for which such living person works represents a major segment of news reportage, and chooses not to report any infarction by such person... reportage will be substantially diminished, and the test for wikipedia inclusion will not be met (that the matter be widely reported). The net result? Money caused the truth to be hidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dleau ( talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

1. And so precisely what was the crime for which Quest was convicted? And precisely what evidence can you adduce for this?
2. Richard Quest is a highly paid reporter for a major news provider (CNN). Got any evidence for the high pay? And how would it be relevant? Elsewhere, you say that the "news" (infotainment) industry opens the spigots of cash in order to whitewash its own (pardon the mixed metaphor).
3. The fact that this is NOT widely reported, as required by wikipedia rules, stems from the very fact that the subject is a highly visible member of such major news organisation. Wikipedia has no requirement for wide reporting of the conviction, just for reliable reporting. Got any? If not, could the lack of reporting conceivably be because there was no conviction, or because the mass media, silly though they certainly are, had less trivial things to think about? (Or if you're into conspiracies, there are always the "Illuminati", "Knights Templar" and so forth to blame it on.) Or even that there was no conviction?
4. Money caused the truth to be hidden. "The truth", again? Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.

-- Hoary ( talk) 09:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not prevent mention of arrests for crimes - in the case at point the issue becomes: "Was the arrest notable in the life of the person?" and "Is the arrest relevant in any way to the life of the person?". [27] is from The New York Times. I consider that newspaper to be a "newspaper of record" for such material, and is not a tabloid in any manner. It does not indicate a "lack of reporting." The NYT describes him as " a high-profile correspondent for CNN International, known for feature reports and profiles. CNN calls Mr. Quest, who is British, one of the network’s 'most instantly recognizable members.' " Thus his notability is pretty well-established per the NYT. The claim shold note if there was any conviction, but the arest is clearly notable and RS sourceable. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 10:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC) [28] Reuters indicates " New York judge ordered CNN reporter Richard Quest to undergo six months of counseling on Friday after Quest was arrested in Central Park for possession of a controlled substance, his lawyer said" which is clearly about as NPOV as one could wish. Collect ( talk) 10:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Trouble is - even if you agree that is worthy of reporting - repeatedly users come along and red top the titillation into the bio - imo - its better to leave it out - (in reply to Dleau's comment about Australian journalist Peter Lloyd ...what is in other articles is not particularly relevant to this discussion, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and looking at that biography, that subject got ten months imprisonment, and has written a book about the experience, a much more noteworthy affair imo - Peter_Lloyd_(ABC_correspondent)#Drug_arrest) - so what is worthy of us reporting? The drug possession and the six months rehab - or the detail the he reportedly had a dildo in his car boot? - I could accept the detail below with two of the highest quality reporting sources, but as I say it would be difficult to maintain. Youreally can 18:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In April 2008, Quest was stopped by police at 3:40am in Central Park, New York City, and after questioning, admitted to be in possession of a small quantity of a controlled substance: crystal methamphetamine. ^[1] Quest agreed to undergo 6 months of drug counseling. ^[2]

• - Update - content has been added - see - Richard_Quest#Central_Park_arrest - Youreally can 19:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that this section could be expanded to cover his personal life in general. Some quotes from [29] [30] would be useful, in particular, "All I would say on the subject, besides the standard line that it was a highly regrettable incident, is that nothing is as it seems – and certainly not the way it was reported at the time." I think that it would substantially help to alleviate BLP concerns to further detail his comeback subsequent to the event (the article currently mentions Quest Means Business but we should mention more explicitly, as the Guardian points out, that this success followed the incident) Note that as per the first reference, and [31], and List of LGBT Jews, Quest's sexuality should also be mentioned in the article. Wnt ( talk) 09:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

His sexuality seems irrelevant to the article. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 11:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

His sexuality is not only irrelevant, it is totally irrelevant to his notability entirely. Collect ( talk) 18:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: Editors keep re-adding him to List of LGBT Jews which I consider a violation of BLPCAT at a minimum. Other eyes welcomed. Collect ( talk) 20:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The entry is cited. The citation is clear. If it is cited, in a reliable source, then it cannot fail BLP conditions. I can't be bothered to revert your deletion again. Once is enough. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 20:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Without regard to the merits of this particular case, the statement "If it is cited, in a reliable source, then it cannot fail BLP conditions" is flat wrong. For all articles, but especially BLPs, verifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for inclusion. CIreland ( talk) 20:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is the kind of craziness we have going on with BLPs. We can include some news flap about a non-prosecution from a few sources, but we can't include mention that he's gay from a few sources. Now why not? Well, one explanation is because homosexuality is bad. We can't cite bad sources from the gay press, though we can cite sources that document other, very embarrassing things. We can't talk about homosexuality in the article, because that is too bad to tar him with, but we can talk about the arrest, citing only the most serious details that make him sound like he's some degenerate drug addict and leaving out the cute bits about the rope and sex toy (which are bad). And in this way, people who are very strict about BLP policy can, without saying bad things, make it clear that a well-known gay broadcaster is, indeed, of bad character. Wnt ( talk) 22:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh? Are you referring to a prosecuted case where a judge made a court order for 6 months of treatment? That is nknown as a "court result" and is not a "non-prosecution." And the claim in the Quest BLP is carefully stated in order not to imply any Wikipedia judgement at all, and no "lurid details" - which is what NPOV requires. The bit about including two issues which BLP/N has clearly stated need more than casual sources (sexual orientation and ethnicity/religion) including some relation to the notability of the person, is something where you appear to be on the minority at best. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 00:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't really believe in the exclusion of this notable event. But there's something fishy going on here. According to the source above, "Quest, 46, later appeared before State Court Judge Anthony Ferrara, who told him the case would be dismissed if he attends counseling," Dismissed means not convicted, and some people here usually are all for excluding minor criminal charges that haven't led to a conviction, though the existing policy only permits and does not require this. Also normally I hear a lot about how Wikipedia biographies should strive to be comprehensive descriptions of the entire person, not just a few notable events. So how is it that there's so much opposition to covering the sexuality or religion of someone identified as such in multiple sources? Now mind you, I'm for full disclosure, covering everything. I think that allowing a wide-ranging discussion of his personal life would have the effect of defusing an incident like this by putting it in a broader context. While we obviously can't speculate, we can leave the reader to speculate about what happened - and all things considered, it would be less of an embarrassment for someone to (for example) react wildly to drugs given to him (under who knows what circumstances) by a lover on one wild night, than to be a habitual drug addict who has lost all control. The brief text provided definitely makes a person assume the latter interpretation, by excluding the sexual angle. True, I'm the first to say we don't have to have a complete article before we add some newsworthy event, but, I'm talking about articles that are incomplete spontaneously, because no one's filled them in yet, not articles that are forcibly kept incomplete. Wnt ( talk) 05:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Do we typically mention the sexual orientation of people? I don't think we do. A person's sexual orientation is irrelevant, typically. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 12:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)He was prosecuted. A judge issued a binding court order per reliable sources. It meets the criteria for use in a BLP. In fact, a lot of people have far lesser stuff in their BLP, as you are absolutely aware. Including long expositions in some BLPs about childhood incidents for which no arrests were made, no complaints were made at the time, and where no criminal activity occurred. The NYT main "topics" article on Quest has this in it. And I do not see how the NPOV and brief bit about this would lead anyone to "interpret" it to mean more than it states. Concerns at BLP/N concerning categorization of ethnicity/religion and sexuality have been noted for several years with the consensus leading to the current rules - you are more than free to seek an RfC to alter them if you wish, but that is a policy issue, and should not affect the interpretation here of extant policy. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Chavis Carter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - Concerning the Death of Chavis Carter

Hi. I'm posting this here to seek guidance on the inclusion of this article - although the guy is actually dead, apparently from a suicide while in a police vehicle, there are concerns on the BLP policy about the inclusion, since it's concerning a very recent death, and there is something about not including material like this, to prevent distress to relatives, etc. I am not quite sure about a way round this, but in my own opinion, the material is worthy of CSD, although not entirely sure how. Any thoughts or suggestions welcome.  BarkingFish  19:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As currently written, I do not see a BLP concern. The subject may not pass notability barriers, depending on how much coverage of this there is, and what the fallout is, but if he does pass such barriers, then the level of detail thus far included would be virtually mandated in order for the article to make sense. Additionally, since the family themselves are commenting on the subject, the "living relatives" provision is weakened imo. At most the alleged crimes could be removed, and still say while he was arrested for unspecified issues or something, but cannabis possesion is not so outrageously derogatory as to cause a BLP issue for a dead person imo. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Update - article is now under discussion at - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chavis Carter ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Youreally can 22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ingo Haar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently removed a posting on the biography of Ingo Haar [32] that is a falsehood and in plain English a blatant POV push. The false posting was restored again by another user who could very well be a sock. Users over in German Wikipedia may be able to help us to verify the information in this biography. I really want to avoid an edit war and request your review of this matter. -- Woogie10w ( talk) 14:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I Just reversved a falsehood and in plain English a blatant POV push on the biography of Ingo Haar for the third time. Please review. -- Woogie10w ( talk) 11:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month. CIreland ( talk) 11:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have notified the three editors who made these edits of the posting here. I have a copy of the text of the article by Haar that was misrepresented.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 11:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Aga Khan IV (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The section on marriages, divorces and children is rife with references which are from tabloid newspapers and therefore may not be projecting an entirely neutral perspective. This can be further clarified in a manner which is not defamatory

The section on Nizari Ismaili Imamat has a paragraph on the Aga Khan's views on alcohol. Firstly, the paragraph doesn't entail in any way to the section on Nizar Ismaili Imamat. Secondly, a reference to his grandfather and his views on alcohol are entirely irrelevant to the point of view under discussion. (the article is on on Aga Khan IV not III)

The section on Divine nature of the Aga Khan may not be relevant to an encyclopedia article. If written in standards of an encyclopedia, referenced understanding of modern scholars of tradition Ismaili view on the Imamat should be discussed, rather that a seemingly misrepresentation of Ismaili sources suited to an interpretation of people who do not understand each's significance. Finally, if its necessary that Aga Khan IV's own views must be incorporated since this article primarily refers to his biography

On the personal finances and income generation from the community again a gross misrepresentation of facts have taken place. The Aga Khan's views may be helpful here to clarify the situation which are on record

Eagle's mount ( talk) 10:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The two main contributors to the article, Ruwayd ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mukesh.ambani ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), [33] have more than 100 edits to the page each, but almost zero to zero posted on their talk pages. Seemed unusual, so I listed it here. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 01:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Marco Rubio (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Was, when quite young, baptised in an LDS church, and the mateer is so noted in his BLP. Body text:

Rubio's family was Roman Catholic, but from age 8 to age 11, he and his family attended The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while they lived in Las Vegas

Which is a reasonable weight for discussion of his religious background. One editor now inists on adding to the infobox "formerly Mormon" as "religion." I consider this UNDUE as it presents far greater weight to the reigion of a youth attending a church with his family than is reasonably warranted, and that infoboxes are ill-used for any contentious claims in the best of times. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Infoboxes are spectacularly bad at conveying any sort of nuance. It should remain in the article body and not in the infobox. MastCell  ^Talk 20:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Whilst the phrase "formerly Mormon" may be strictly true, when placed baldly like that in the infobox, what it implies is actually contrary to fact - so much and so obviously so that one might legitimately question the motivation of any editor advocating for inclusion. CIreland ( talk) 21:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The first mention of Rubio and Mormon in the relevant literature was on February 23, 2012. [34] Rubio's career started in 2000. For the Rubio article to be a representative survey of the relevant literature, using formerly Mormon in an infobox would give the wrong impression (that Mormonism has played a part in his career beginning in 2000). Also, including the Mormon information in the Early life section of the article may not be reflective of how the relevant literature played out over time, even if the information is true and appears to be relevant to his early life. The Mormon information was uncovered on February 23, 2012 as part of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 and would be relevant to that article. The Mormon information is relevant to Rubio article as being something uncovered as of February 23, 2012, not necessarily as part of the relevant literature's reflection of his early life, and then only should be included when weighed against all the reliable source information available on Rubio. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 19:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

While the policy isn't exactly about this situation (it doesn't mention "former" anything) it seems like this would be covered by WP:BLPCAT. Note that one of the reasons we require self-identification is that category names (and infoboxes) don't contain modifiers. Since the infobox can't contain a modifier like "formerly Mormon as a child in the sense of going to a Mormon church when with his parents, but we don't know if he ever believed in any Mormon beliefs", using it would be inappropriate. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 23:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Missy Franklin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The details about her 2012 Olympics wins do not seem to be correct in the first paragraph - section 2.4 (2012 Summer Olympic Games) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desi ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Which details are incorrect and what is the correct information? -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 19:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

D. Ian M. Wallace (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could I have a second opinion on D. Ian M. Wallace please? I'm minded to remove the section on criticism of his writing, not because its untrue or uncited, but because of its undue weight, given that we have no positive reviews, and nothing about the esteem he's generally held in. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I would post first on the talk page and then be bold and removed the material, especially if it is from a non notable person, ie red link. If you get reverted, maybe then get others involved. Good luck. -- Mollskman ( talk) 23:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Steve Gill (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Steve Gill hasn't had any reliable sources (except for one link to an alternative newsweekly) since 2009. The current article has 5404 B (876 words) of readable prose size and uses inline external links as primary sources. Is it time to reduce this to a stub? Viriditas ( talk) 23:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The references were in the article. I added <ref></ref> to those so the reference appeared in the Reference section of the article. [35] I also added a further reading section with source articles where Gill was the main topic of the source article. [36] -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 16:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing has changed at all. Did you read what I said? There's no reliable sources in the article except for a primary source transcript. Viriditas ( talk) 22:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

John Herdman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Personal Life entry 100% lies and defamation of character — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.24.85 ( talk) 21:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct - this article has been the subject of persistent defamatory vandalism in recent days. None is now in the article. I suggest that other editors add it to their watch lists, as I have. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen, and thanks also to the other editors who cleaned up. Semi-protection is probably the best answer, but I am hesitant since the vandalism died down yesterday. Then again, Canada plays the US today and it may flare up again--I don't want to protect preemptively, though. If if start up again, please report to WP:RFP or drop me a line (can't guarantee that I'll be any quicker). Drmies ( talk) 16:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Rudolph Kos (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone please look at Rudolph Kos. I don't know what he was actually convicted of but his article is pretty clear he was central to a major child sex abuse case. I'm not really interested in researching the subject and developing the references but I think someone should have a look at it. Insomesia ( talk) 22:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I added four solid references and deleted dead links and unsourced material. He was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual assault and a number of other crimes, and was sentenced to life in prison. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I added another reference. [37] However, I didn't find any references with his 1946 birth year. A biography may not be the best way to present this information in Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 01:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Uzma Gamal. You may be right that a biography may not be the optimal form. However, the news coverage of Kos was so extensive and persisted in for so many years in so many reliable sources nationwide that I believe he meets the standards of WP:PERPETRATOR because his crimes were a "well-documented historic event". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for getting the info into Wikipedia. With a biography, the article should have info on his childhood and generally focus on his life (rather than hsi crime, which is why the reliable sources write about him). A tweek in the title may help remove a need for including typical biographical information. I looked at Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in the United States to see if anyone came up with a solution, given there are 1,000s of priests involved but a lot of that info won't really make it into Wikipedia because most of the priests don't meet biography requirements. There's Gerald Fitzgerald (priest) and Barry Ryan (Catholic priest), but that doesn't seem to be enough. Maybe a title such as Sexual abuse scandal of Rudolph Kos or Sexual abuse scandal by Rudolph Kos. If we start to put these priest abuse scandle articles under a heading Sexual abuse scandal of X, then we don't have to also meet biography standards and can focus on the information that reliable sources are most likely to publish. Sexual abuse scandal of X can include childhood information, but, unlike biography articles, doesn't have to. The Sexual abuse scandal of X can serves as a Wikipedia:Summary style article for those priests where a biography article is the optimal form. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 15:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Sex abuse cases of the Diocese of Dallas? Kos wasn't the only one. See [38]. Insomesia ( talk) 15:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Could I get a second opinion on this diff please. Subject is Lt. Governor of Florida, and allegations were very widely reported and likely to be a factor in her future political career; however, it also has the form of the classic "disgruntled ex-employee" trying to take out the former boss. I think we should include something, but delicately, which I hope this does. IMHO, it's not truly a BLP issue, but it's certainly edging up to it and a disinterested third party's view might be helpful. Another editor has been removing the material, I'm guessing due to the lack of substantiation to the claims. Studerby ( talk) 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• User:Collect is on it; I agree with their edits. Thanks for reporting this. Drmies ( talk) 05:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ben Cohen (businessman) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Under the Social Activism section of this article, it states the following:

He supports small-scale farming, cop-killers, does not accept milk with rBGH or other implants, and has heavily criticized US budgetary priorities, pointing out that more money is spent on nuclear weapons than on children's healthcare programs.[6

"Cop-killers"?

Not only have I never seen that associated with Ben Cohen, it seems potentially libelous. I recommend that it either be sourced or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.45.212 ( talk) 04:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• How about deleted. Next time, feel free to remove such claims--better safe than sorry. I have my doubts about that list in the first place, given the reference, and will remove it. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 04:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Moheb Ullah Borekzai (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user named "Geo Swan" added “DoD claims he returned to supporting terrorism” to this biography.

I have checked the sources and found that this is not supported by any of the references. I ask this user for the reference that would support this claim but he did not provide me with a relevant reference that supports this claim. Instead that user replies with irrelevant walls of words and stonewalling.

I request someone from this board to correct or remove this false claim that has been introduced into this biography of a living person. Thank you. Gyrojeff ( talk) 04:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

References 4, 5, and 6 discuss former Guantanamo prisoners who are suspected or confirmed terrorists. Reference 4 does not mention Borekzai's name as a confirmed re-terrorist. But references 5 and 6 mention Muhibullah (his alternate name per the bio) who was transferred to Afganistan in July 2005 as a suspected terrorist. However, he was apparently never convicted of any crime, hence his release. Also, DoD's statement about his current terrorist activity is categorized as a suspicion, not confirmed. He seems to be relatively unknown and WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTABILITY would seem to indicate that he is not notable enough to have a wiki bio and/or no information about merely suspected criminal activity should be included in the article. Coaster92 ( talk) 05:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Now under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salim Suliman Al Harbi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Youreally can 06:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as i can see the BLP violation i pointed out is not under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salim Suliman Al Harbi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I would appreciate if some administrator here could now remove or change it. Do we have special rules for suspects in Guantanamo? It is a very negative claim. This claim is not supported by any source. It is a BLP. What are we waiting for? BLP violations should be removed as soon as they have been identified. Gyrojeff ( talk) 09:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the tip of an iceberg. But I would suggest you consider carefully whether this is actually governed by any rules about crime. These people, after all, are being held as "enemy combatants". It would appear that this is war news, coming from a Pentagon report as being described by the New York Times. This, of course, is a report of war from one of the involved parties, and is obviously not neutral, but it is as good a coverage of the position of one side as is plausible to obtain. Wnt ( talk) 20:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• A couple of corrections. You wrote: “These people, after all, are being held as ‘enemy combatants’.”

1. All of the alleged recidivists were released. So far as the information available to the public only a couple of these individuals were re-apprehended, so they WERE held as enemy combatants. With the possible exception of a couple of captives who may have listed on the one list of Bagram captives that has been published, none of them ARE being held as enemy combatants.
2. Some of the captives the DIA characterizes as recidivists, were cleared of being enemy combatants. Five Uyghur captives from China, who were sent to Albania, were listed as recidivists -- even though they were officially cleared of being enemies prior to their capture.

You are correct, being classified as an enemy combatant, when that Bush administration term was in use, was not, in and of itself a crime. The Obama administration has abandoned the use of the term altogether.

I would like to clarify what you are saying about neutrality. Are you suggesting that when third parties, like the NYTimes, or the scholars at Seton Hall University I mentioned below, comment on the DIA claims, their reporting is infected by whatever bias the DIA claims are based on? If you read the analysis in that scholarly paper you will see that they were skeptical of the DIA claims. So, I don`t think I agree that reporting on third party coverage of a non-neutral source is necessarily non-neutral.

Our policies and other wikidocuments on neutrality are full of instructions as to how to neutrally cover non-neutral references. You seem to be suggesting even neutral coverage of non-neutral references is off-limits in BLPs. Is this what you meant? Geo Swan ( talk) 21:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The NYT is more neutral than the Defense Department, but there are obviously viewpoints in this conflict with which they would not dare to flirt. I certainly do not mean to exclude coverage of such a reputable source, nor of the classified report they report seeing, but it might be possible for you to work on being even clearer about how indirectly this allegation is made. To be clear, it sounds like this is close to a case where the allegation is not "presented as true" by the source you're using: the NYT seems to distance itself from a vague claim of terrorism which, it knows too well, is very cheap for the government to make. But it's not quite there. First, because the government is still presumed not to be out-and-out lying in these things unless (until...) proven otherwise, and second, because a statement like this from the military is more than an allegation, it is potentially an indication of some future action - if they say these individuals are returned to terrorism, I assume that this is a military statement that implies they might one day pick up a cell phone and have it explode in their ear, or suddenly be blown up by a missile, shot by a drone, etc. Am I wrong? Wnt ( talk) 22:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I added the following additional reference to the article on Moheb Ullah Borekzai. Scholars at Seton Hall University have written about a dozen papers analyzing in detail what the DoD has claimed about the Guantanamo captives. This is one of the papers that analyzes the “recidivism” claim. It reproduces the 2009 DIA report that names Borekzai as an appendix. Appendix G is a table listing the ID numbers of former captives alleged to have been recidivists, and it included ISN 546 -- Borekzai`s ID number. Geo Swan ( talk) 21:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Mark P. Denbeaux (2009-06-05). "Revisionist Recidivism: An analysis of the Government's representations of alleged "recidivism" of the Guantanamo detainees" (PDF). Seton Hall University. p. 35. Retrieved 2012-07-31.

Sources are good, more are better, and I appreciate your hard work. Wnt ( talk) 22:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree sources are good but this one again does not support the infobox claim. Did anybody actually read the source? The funny thing is this scholarly source trashes the DoD claim.

Moheb Ullah Borekzai's name appears only in the original DIA "fact sheet" list as "suspected" with an definition what "suspected" could mean.

For me it is beyond comprehension how any reasonable person could think that this source would verify "DoD claims Moheb Ullah Borekzai returned to supporting terrorism".

To resolve this i suggest to remove the infobox claim and to edit the given section accordingly. Add the DIA "suspect" him and to explain what they mean by "suspected". Gyrojeff ( talk) 23:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest the comment above reflects a fundamental misunderstanding over how our policies are interpreted. The wikipedia articles on the individuals the DIA lists as suspected or confirmed recidivists should not characterize the alleged recidivism as an established fact. It should neutrally cover what third parties' comments on the claims. If third parties explicitly comment on the specific claim a particular individual was a recidivist, that should be mentioned in that individual's article. This article directs readers to an article that covers the recidivism claims. Coverage of criticisms of the claims belongs there. Including coverage of general criticism of the recidivism claims in an article on a specific individual lapses from the advice of the WP:COATRACK essay.

Gyrojeff writes, above, “...it is beyond comprehension how any reasonable person could think that this source would verify ‘DoD claims Moheb Ullah Borekzai returned to supporting terrorism’.” Gyrojeff seems to be calling for verification that Moheb Ullah Borekzai WAS a recidivist. Since the article attributes the claim to the DoD, I think all that needs to be verified is that the DoD made the claim.

The article already says “On May 27, 2009, the Defense Intelligence Agency published a ‘fact sheet’ listing Guantanamo captives who had ‘re-engaged in terrorism’. It stated that Mohibullah was suspected of ‘association with the Taliban’.” Immediately above Gyrojeff calls for the article to make clear he was merely suspected. I think it already said that he was merely suspected. Gyrojeff did not suggest this rewording on my talk page, or on the article's talk page, which seems to me to be a misuse of this noticeboard. Geo Swan ( talk) 14:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Gyrojeff's comments strongly echo those of User:Iqinn who was indefinitely blocked for unrepentant edit-warring, and who edit-warred over this exact same issue three years ago. I initiated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iqinn. Iqinn already raised this issue here three years ago -- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive67#Rasul Kudayev. Geo Swan ( talk) 14:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Your wall of words and stonewalling is not helpful. Let's assume: "DoD claims he “returned to supporting terrorism" would be verified in the given source without all the original research that you have performed. Than still this would violate BLP and NPOV as there are other sources that trash the claim. I have tried to resolve the issue with you on your talk page and here i have suggested a solution (remove this from the infobox and explain both views in NPOV in the relevant section.) This is a BLP violation, user Geo Swan objects to remove the violating text that he has added so i think this noticeboard is the right place for other people to get involved and to act. Gyrojeff ( talk) 21:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, here's the problem: as usual, it's the infobox itself. What does "status" mean? It sounds like GeoSwan is interpreting it as the status with the American government as a (former) captive; after all, it is literally " Template:Infobox War on Terror detainee". But Gyrojeff sees it as a general infobox about the man (and why not, it's titled with his name), so it should reflect the full range of sources (or if there's no room, none?) I'm thinking maybe it's time to kill the infobox, and let the article text speak for itself. Either that, or redesign it to clarify some things. Wnt ( talk) 12:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Update -- Gyrojeff was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Iqinn. Geo Swan ( talk) 12:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dave Benson Phillips (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Repeated insertion of unsourced content by RMasters3434 ( talk · contribs) (e.g. [39]). Adambro ( talk) 13:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Have you read this 2012 interview with the subject and this complaint? Part of the problem is that this very Wikipedia article has clearly been one of the vehicles for these hoaxes. See this 2001 edit, what was reverted here, and what was reverted here. Looking at User talk:RMasters3434, I see no attempts to actually engage this person, whose account name does indeed match that of the subject's manager, in conversation — to explain the difference between a biography that states the facts about the subject and a biography that attempts to be a vehicle for dispelling myths about the subject, albeit myths that Wikipedia vandals attempt to propagate. Some dialogue would work wonders, I suspect. Uncle G ( talk) 17:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, currently doing that. WilliamH ( talk) 23:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the information in the article is sourced to [40] which does not appear to be a reliable source with a reptuation for fact checking and accuracy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that putting something into a Wikipedia article pointing out that previous versions of the article have contained hoaxes should fall under IAR, even if Wikipedia "isn't supposed" to contain that kind of information. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 01:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect, my edits contend no such thing. They merely report that he was the victim of an internet-perpetrated death hoax. They do not comment on the vehicle used to perpetrate that (which mainly appears to be a now defunct Facebook group). Remember, notability is already established: this guy had his own BAFTA-nominated TV show, and this primary source is perfectly admissible for biograhpical details. WilliamH ( talk) 20:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Anti-semetic writings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.221.43 ( talk) 02:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it has already been taken care of, but thanks for notifying us! -- Jayron 32 03:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

..looks problematic, could someone please take a look? A recent source is here. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• List of LGBT Jews (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have for some time been concerned about the presence of articles that list Thingian Fooians. When nominated for deletion at least one example creates a hotly contested discussion of "but it is a notable intersection", yet the list is really a piece of synthesised original research (0.9 probabilty). One such list troubles me particularly. It is the intersection of LGBT people and Jewish People, and is the List of LGBT Jews.

The fact that one is LGBT is not notable of itself, though is often verifiable. The fact that one is Jewish is not notable of itself, though is usually verifiable. What I fail to understand is how the intersection of these two non notable elements of a person's life becomes a notable intersection and is worth of an article.

To set this into a perspective, let us consider people who are both Pastafarians, and whose sexuality means they are attracted only to sofas. Not only are neither of these things notable in themselves, the intersection is not notable either. List of Sofa Attracted Pastafarians is an article we would deprecate at once and whose existence would be terminated by consensus in short order (again 0.9 probability). Yet we keep the list of people who boyth are Jews and who are LGBT and consider it to be important, nay notable. By definition it can not be. It may be interesting, but it is not notable.

Why do I raise this at this noticeboard?

Because many members of the LGBT Jews article are living people. The article creates clear scope, should a person be so minded, for the creation of a discriminatory environment against those featured upon it for being ether or both of Jewish or LGBT. Such discrimination has been popular in history over many centuries. I recognise that a goodly number of the people featured in the article are not living, but sufficient are. And such a grouping is likely to fail WP:BLPCAT.

So I have raised it here in order that what I hope to be a sensible discussion might be held. I should declare clearly that I am neither biased for or against Jewish or LGBT people, but I also need to declare an interest, clearly shown on my user page, that I am a out gay man.

I am also using this article as an example of generic articles on Thingian Fooians that ought to be considered as part of the discussions. I am not against intersections where each part of the intersection is notable. Lists of people over 120 years of age who win marathon road races at that age are notable because each part is notable. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 15:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There clearly is BLP concerns here. If you look at Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria, it asks, "When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself: If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance? Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?" In light of this, I revised the selection criteria of List of LGBT Jews to include: "Being both Jewish and LGBT is a canonical (recognized) example of some facet of each person on this list such that the below listed person's fame or significance flows from being both Jewish and LGBT." [41] I think that will help address the BLP concern (editors reading this, please provide your thoughts on this below). Now, to address the current BLP problems, look at the reliable source(s) listed for each entry. Per Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria, if the reliable source does not support the person being recognized as Jewish and LGBT such that their fame or significance flows from being both Jewish and LGBT (or you can't find any such reference), then the entry should be removed. To get more of a sense of issues regarding intersections, take a look at Wikipedia:Category intersection and Wikipedia:Irrelevant Intersections for Lists. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 16:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

As WP:BLP now appears to require that each part of the category be specifically well sourced and relevant to the notability of the person, I suggest that the combination also nust make for a relevant part of the person's notability - which I suggest is a rare occurence. In the case at hand, I would further suggest that most of those in the list are not notable for each part of the category as well as the combination of categories - we have enough problems with simply labelling folks as "Jewish" without catenating the issue to this ginormous extent. Collect ( talk) 17:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no difficulty with that proposition though I feel one does not even need to go that far. If Thingian is not a notable set and Fooian is not a notable set, I cannot see how even the article containing Thingain Fooians has come into existence (except as a prurient curiosity), and I feel it should be torn down..

This is a separate issue from Fred The Fooian also being Thingian, assuming his Thingian-ness and Fooian-ness are relevant to his inherent notability.

That these are, in my view, separate issues does not diminish the importance of dealing with both of the issues. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 17:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• It is easy to find sources that indicate that LGBT and Jewish are a notable intersection; entire books exist on the subject. I would suggest that the thread-starter's comparison of LGBT to attraction to inanimate objects, and Judaism to the joke religion Pastafarianism, not be repeated. Additionally, I would request that opponents of this list produce other non-LGBT lists that they think should also be deleted; censoring sourced information about LGBT people is a popular pastime on the BLP board and it's hard not to see this thread in that light. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Before crying "Censorship" it is quite important to read what was written. Your hackles are up for no good reason. Do try to understand that I am not comparing being LGBT to being attracted to Sofas, nor Judaism to Pastafarianism. You have reacted instead of thinking. You are using outrage instead of logic. I can;t wait for Godwin's Law to be applied next. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not a place to stand on a religious and sexual freedom soapbox. I was clear to state that I am unbiased, and that I am gay. The words you used show you missed those things. If you have something to add that is not rhetoric then people are listening. You do provide an example of how this topic becomes heated almost at once. I'm grateful to you for that. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 09:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Being a member of two traditionally oppressed communities, Jewish and LGBT, both of which have continue to pull a death sentence and specific hate crimes would suggest a notable intersection. Countless books and documentaries have been focussed specifically on LGBT Jews. I think it may be smart to add to the lead section a bit on why this intersection is notable. Insomesia ( talk) 07:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• That one might be killed or oppressed for a personal attribute does not of itself make that attribute, nor the intersection of those attributes, notable. Nor does the fact that books have been written about something make it inherently notable. Instead one must look for the true global notability in a topic before determining if it is valid. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 09:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you propose to determine notability if not by coverage in reliable sources? That's how notability works. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This list suffers doubly from WP:BLPCAT and all members must have reliable sourcing for both categories. However, per WP:NOTESAL if the list topic is receiving reliable 3rd party coverage, the list topic is valid. In this case, there are numerous books/articles/etc covering this topic. I an more neutral on the issue of if members of the list need to be notable on their own (this weakest criteria probably does not satisfy BLPCAT), for both criteria independently, or for both criteria jointly - I can see good arguments for all three choices. However, by virtue of BLPCAT, the list is going to be relitively short as compared to the true population, as BLPCAT is quite restrictive and having people who have self identified for both criteria, and are notable for both criteria is going to be a high burden. Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the list has a good case for meeting WP:GNG and should be kept if the subject of the intersection receives significant independent coverage from multiple reliable sources. Look at these lists as if they were, for example, List of Star Trek episodes. This is the intersection of "Thing" = Star Trek and "Foo" = TV episode. This list stays because the underlying topic Star Trek airing on TV is notable. We don't have List of My Local AM Radio Station's Late Night Call-In Show episodes because the show itself isn't notable. We have had a number of discussions, including several AFDs, for articles like List of Jewish Nobel laureates, about this, and the strongest argument for keep was the fact that the intersection itself met WP:GNG--the intersection itself has had significant coverage by multiple reliable sources (see the article List of Jewish Nobel laureates reference #3 for examples of what this looks like). There is sometimes a complaint "Why then don't we have List of Catholic Nobel laureates? That's not fair or biased." and the response is, if you can dig up significant coverage in multiple reliable sources examining this intersection, that would probably support such a list. If "Thingian Fooian" does have or could have an article, that's a strong argument to keep "List of Thingian Fooians" as long as the list is large enough and the reliably-sourced information detailed enough to warrant a stand-alone list separate from the main article ( List of African countries should be blue; however, while Antarctica is blue, List of antarctic continents should stay red). Zad 68 15:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In reply to no-one in particular, it seems to me that any list of Thingian Fooians that merits surviving here requires an absolute set of references in the preamble to the list itself that demonstrates with precision that the intersection is notable. The LGBT Jews intersection is the example that gave me concern, but it is not unique, as we can see.

Since WP:BLPCAT applies to each set that intersects there need to be references to demonstrate why not only each set is notable but that the intersection is notable. Unless and until that is present the contents of the list is an irrelevance. There will alwasy be individuals we can find who are notable and who happen to be Thingian Fooians, but that is that they happen to be, not that they are notable forbeing members of a notable intersection.

For anyone who is concerned that directing this towards LGBT Jews means that this is an attack on either set, it is not. This discussion is about the merits of the sets that intersect, both abstract and concrete, and about how to ensure that the intersection is documented as valid and notable in addition to and ideally as a precursor for populating the list with members. We require high standards of notability and verifiability but seem to fail to apply them to articles on Thingian Fooians. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 20:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not directing this discussion at the LGBT Jews list. It is an example, no more and no less, of the things that concern me. As an example it provides a decent focus for discussion, but we must not forget that it is just an example. I also chose this noticeboard because BLP issues are of the highest order of concern for Wikipedia, but I do not for a moment suggest that this discussion be confined to biographies or articles that can be classed in parts as biographic detail. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 20:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

at some point wouldnt the intersections become specifically notable? List of LGBT Jewish politicians or List of LGBT Jewish politicians from Utah-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm increasingly uncomfortable using List of LGBT Jews as a test case to expand the definition of what meets notability on these intersection articles. Many of the intersection lists I've seen are corollaries to listing people who fall into two categories, in this case both religion (Jewish) and LGBT have to be sourced in the article to a higher degree than most categories. A more accurate test would be looking at the low end of sourcing and verification that involved neither religion or LGBT categories. A profession, for instance, or an alumni, or where someone was born, lived, or worked. Start proving those categories are subpar for an intersection article and maybe a new standard can be established. I agree with posts above that a RFC or more generalized discussion might be more appropriate than a noticeboard. Insomesia ( talk) 08:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've taken great trouble to try to ensure that the LGBT Jews list is an example, no more and no less. It is not now and never has been a test case. It was the catalyst that prompted me to raise this. It's a good example because neither set is inherently notable. Another venue could be interesting, and it would be worth copying this entire thread there and redirecting further discussion to it. Even so we have already all the policies in place. It is a matter of adhering to them, not of making more policy. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 09:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are incorrect that the set of LGBT Jews is not notable. Here are just a few sources. This list far surpases any possible WP:NOTESAL bar that could reasonably be set. However, the overall concept of how intersection sets should be dealt with is a good question, this is just not a good example, becaus ethere is no question about the notability of the list. (However, there could be a good debate about what the particular criteria for inclusion in the list is)

• http://books.google.com/books?id=HOGjyWv1SGwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=LGBT+Jew&source=bl&ots=WtndHE6hyV&sig=2Wmg9pN8LC6iYAdyRc33UlcaBZE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uBkhUM7aIYTziQKh_oFQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA
• http://books.google.com/books?id=aTvhHUXcH14C&printsec=frontcover&dq=LGBT+Jew&source=bl&ots=zV2Haa6K-n&sig=XP1Z2z7COjK48Lf7ktlykjcaax8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uBkhUM7aIYTziQKh_oFQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ
• http://books.google.com/books?id=xOmU5q1x8HsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=LGBT+Jew&source=bl&ots=kJq9LipRoH&sig=brfCTtEO5zRg_XhhMDoEEb_xjSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uBkhUM7aIYTziQKh_oFQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAw
• http://books.google.com/books?id=ev6mcdGsViYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=LGBT+Jew&source=bl&ots=QRGP6hdEv2&sig=xpx5fjN4aPUtVD27KBwhlkfSpW4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uBkhUM7aIYTziQKh_oFQ&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBg
• http://books.google.com/books?id=wWqDztbNgpYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=LGBT+Jew&source=bl&ots=q66DGzICZa&sig=tFdwFhGqikxKAH9r4L38wBxIs60&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uBkhUM7aIYTziQKh_oFQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBw
• http://books.google.com/books?id=a3FmLwEACAAJ&dq=LGBT+Jew&source=bl&ots=Esu_LWQhSS&sig=zIM5DA51XjVXGGPA8p_y1M3K5Fs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GBohUOaGOY7sigKTrYCoCA&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAzgK
• http://books.google.com/books?id=TRIfClIjBBQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=LGBT+Jew&source=bl&ots=61kWqEi8ix&sig=qHJTgfpB5nX3rYTJDZwVOaixfzY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GBohUOaGOY7sigKTrYCoCA&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBDgK
• http://books.google.com/books?id=hazES1iT8AUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=LGBT+Jew&source=bl&ots=iwy0d7ZF3F&sig=y3sawzttV5gQKwtnsiNlTS-Vo7Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GBohUOaGOY7sigKTrYCoCA&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCDgK
• http://books.google.com/books?id=mgS8DoaS684C&printsec=frontcover&dq=LGBT+Jew&source=bl&ots=SMdEBxWqRl&sig=gAbIUOoJTdQqKsoxYVTxJc378PI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QxohUN2xAaL1iQKCvYDgCQ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAjgU
• http://books.google.com/books?id=imIEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=LGBT+Jew&source=bl&ots=p2b1Yo-eEn&sig=tlSYH5kfC0oVrF7waixBjKBbSHA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QxohUN2xAaL1iQKCvYDgCQ&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCDgU
• http://books.google.com/books?id=y-eH-BFjdvIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=LGBT+Jew&source=bl&ots=44FbKSuH7d&sig=cKpNMtomrqfGKOEpzPFroz96pWE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ahohUPOaJ8PoigKo3YHABg&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBDge

Gaijin42 ( talk) 13:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The LGBT Jews article is a distraction because it is an example; good or bad, that is all it is. I believe it was an error to place it in the header of this thread, which is why I did not do so. I always wished for a general discussion, and simply gave us a hook to hang our discussion upon.

If you believe those references make the intersection verifiably notable please add them to the preamble to the list. You will find no disagreement from me. I am trying very hard not to discuss that particular article. As I keep saying as clearly as I am able, it was the article that triggered this for me. It is an example. I feel your valid points are overshadowed by your desire to show that the particular article is valid. I had to read your words more than twice to see what you meant. I can't help it that this was the article that triggered the discussion points for me, but we must move way past that point. Your references should handle that once added to the article. Please add them.

It is perfectly possible for Thingian Fooians to be inherently notable as Thingian Fooians even though Thingians are not notable and Fooians are not notable. You are right to ponder upon the criteria for inclusion in a list of Thingian Fooians, though. Is a person notable because he or she is a Thingian Fooian? Or is Thingian Fooian-ness an attribute which they happen to have and is nothing to do with their notablility? WHat is the point at which they become valid to include? Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 13:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that merely being a thingian fooian does not inherently grant notability, but that any already notable (via WP:GNG or other policy) who happens to be a thingian fooian could be included in a list which passes WP:NOTESAL. (in the particular LGBT Jew list, you would also need to satisfy WP:BLPCAT though). I do not think membership in the list should be restricted to those who are notable solely as a result of their thingian fooian-ness. being a thingian fooian of where the set of TF is not notable (and therefore not passing WP:NOTESAL) should probably not have a list - but a category marking them as thingian fooian could be possible. However, that raises the "ghetto" problem if things and foos already have cats (I forget which policy/guideline the ghetto issue is discussed in, but I just came across it earlier...) Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What I think you just said is that a list of Thingian Fooians should include only those who are notable for things other than their TF status who happen also to be verifiably TF, and that TF status alone is insufficient to allow membership of the list. Did I get that right? Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 14:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That is mostly correct. TF does not inherently grant notability. However, that does not preclude the possibility that someone is actually explicitly notable due to their thingian-fooiness (being the direct subject of an article/book on that topic etc) Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

However,to complicate matters, membership of a list is not (by policy) exclusively to notable members. per WP:NOTESAL Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. Now, you may be arguing that we should have a change in that policy/guideline, or that a particular list should be excercizing the "discretion" clause, but that is a slightly different discussion. Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you should start the discussion fresh with no examples discussing just Thingian fooian using hypotheticals. I feel your intent is to improve these lists but many are not all inclusive as they could be, they grow organically like other articles. Looking at the items removed from the List of LGBT Jews I am simply shocked. Apparently the sole reason they were removed is that they weren't sourced, but of course their bios were sourced. Another problem I think you may find is the original research to support who decides how much a person's thingian and fooian characteristics support their notability. In most cases I think if reliable sources, including direct comments by the person, are talking about this aspect of who they are then it's notable enough. I see Wikipedia as an encyclopedia where lists of people who are notable and also both thingian and fooian is the place where I could verify this information. I'm not expecting the list itself to be anything but accurate that they are thingian and fooian and the link to their article would denote notability. I'm not convinced references need to be there duplicating what is in their main article nor do I expect their main article to accurately portray how important each of these thingian and fooian traits are. As many variable are simply not understood how they impact each human being so many cases that original research is beyond most academic and news reporting study. Insomesia ( talk) 18:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

in the specific case of lgbt Jews, wp:blpcat would requirNe you to include refs on the list entry in order to include them. For other abstract TF list articles, that could probably be skipped if the article was sufficiently sourced for the TFness Gaijin42 ( talk) 01:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I see every reason for discussing it in an abstract manner. If your thoughts were directed to me, I am, broadly, irrelevant. I am away in a day or so for several days and will be able to add nothing to the conversation. But you or anyone could take this on and catalyse a discussion in what you perceive to be a more relevant place. The discussion is most definitely where neither (none) of the intersecting sets is (are) inherently notable, and it will benefit from a purely abstract discussion. It should be in a place from where policy may be formed or amended and should be framed in order to form or amend policy. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 18:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I must agree with Mr Faddle. By contrast, what might be interesting are lists of thingian fooians where thinginess and fooiness are widely (if perhaps incorrectly) perceived as incompatible: LGBT fundamentalist Christians, Deaf composers, Blind archers. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I stumbled upon the Michael Blakey article. It was written by himself under the guise of User:Mastermusicgenius - (a seemingly unrelated person with striking biographical similarities, editing only Michael Blakey and uploading this image as his own [42], which either he took from Blakeys homepage [43] or Blakey took Mastermusicgenius photo for his own homepage... But the massive problem I have found with the article is its sensational tone and lack of sources backing up the claims made. i.e. "Blakey has worked with many superstar artists including: Tears for Fears, Dire Straits, Gloria Gaynor, Coolio, Akwid, Mary J. Blige, No Doubt, Mila Mason, 2Pac, Eminem, Luther Vandross, Brian McKnight, Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson, Engelbert Humperdinck, Brooke Allison, Bob Carlisle, Michelle Wright and many others.", the source that is given for that only mentions he worked with Michelle Wright [44]. or "noted for his drumming talent and for producing and promoting some of the most successful artists in the world.", the source given only links to his 22 song credits [45]. And this hyperbolic statement: "been nominated for 5 Grammys, has been awarded 63 gold and platinum records and is attributed with sales of in excess of 100 million albums." - no source given. And it gets worse: "After enjoying its success, he was approached by the Italian car company, Maserati, about owning a dealership in England. Blakey saw opportunity in the ailing car company and instead, offered to take it over." source: something he wrote himself on zoominfo [46] and so on and on. In short: the whole thing is a hyperbolic unsourced self-promotion. Going through the article I did not find any! independent source confirming that this person is relevant beyond his work as a composer for TV and film. Especially as almost all the sources are self written and only imdb seems to be list professional work without self-promotion. Therefore my question: what to do about it? I would like to reduce the hyperbole and trim it all back to sourceable content... but then there is not enough left to warrant an article for this person. So: what would be the right thing to do? noclador ( talk) 15:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• There is no "right" thing to do, but there are at least two possibilites. One is to clean it up and see what you have left. The second is to do you own WP:BEFORE and decide whether the subject is notable. If you decide he is, then you still have to clean up the article, but if you decide he is not, you can nominate it for deletion.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Bbb23. I cleaned the article with the sources given and added tags... now it looks to me as a given that this person is not notable. However I left a note on the talkpage and asked for proper sources. If they come then I am inclined to let the article stand. noclador ( talk) 16:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • did find http://www.latimes.com/classified/realestate/la-hmw-hotpropblakey12-2008dec12,0,7128684.story but can't quite tell if that is a classified type ad, or a "celebrity gossip" type thing.

      Some of the items listed seem almost like a parody. for example: http://www.makefive.com/categories/entertainment/celebrity/best-looking-male-celebrities - which I would either categorize as a joke/hoax site where you can make yourself #1, or as a meat/sockpuppeted survey (as the winning entry only had 50 votes).

      Even his own website listing media refs is mostly PR reprints and a few in passing refs (celeb so-and-so making record to be produced by MB) etc. I am going to nominate for deletion Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    • I've pared the article back, but I suspect he's sufficiently notable for inclusion. The LA Times thing is not a classified ad. It's a weekly article about home sales by celebrities. It's reasonably legitimate - and actually kinda fun in a Hollywood-excessive way.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • … except that the 2008 LA Times piece is repeating, word-for-word, Wikipedia's 2006 biography, which stood much the same until 2009. What do you think a reporter in 2008 in need of a quick blurb might have done? Uncle G ( talk) 18:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Perhaps I was insufficiently clear. First, I was debunking the idea that the Times "article" was a classified ad. Second, I wouldn't use the Times blurb for anything except real estate information, not for the sentence about the artists. The Hot Property article is good for pricing, how many bathrooms so-and-so's house has, how many square feet, etc., not for supporting material about someone's career except perhaps in a generalized sense (he's an actor) - and in this instance, it's a sentence with no context or support. I don't know where the Times writer got it from - perhaps from us, perhaps from his website, perhaps from some other self-published source, but I wouldn't trust it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Just looked at the link provided by Gaijin42 [47], where Blakey beats every living Hollywood actor ever to be nr. 1 as "Best Looking Male Celebrity"... This certainly is a joke or parody, unlike most of the claims he makes, which seem to be just bogus. noclador ( talk) 19:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• For subjects such as this one Billboard is usually very helpful (search using Google Books), but they only deliver one single hit which lists him as a producer. I found nothing else, though the search is made difficult by the plethora of hits for the much more notable Michael Blakey (anthropologist), a link I plan to turn blue imminently. Drmies ( talk) 19:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I was looking into that possibility. I'll leave that to you, then. ☺ I'm somewhat stymied by the assertion on User:Mastermusicgenius that this person was "with Level 42 and Tears for Fears". I haven't found any evidence that that was the case. The 2006 biography said "performed with", I note, which is slightly different. Our Tears for Fears article seems not to mention something that I have found, namely that Jimmy Copley was the band's drummer on its 1990 tour. This again, though, is your department, Drmies. Uncle G ( talk) 21:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I had no idea Drmies knew anything about bands. Nothing definitive, but it looks like Blakey may have drummed in 1990 with Tears for Fears on a video of their song "Mad World". That's what it says on his own website, and there's a bunch of YouTubes (and similar sites) out there (without dates and without any way to verify anything).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I can actually sing "Love Games" and "Everybody Wants to Rule the World". I grew up in the 80s, Bbb. If I had any hair left I'd still be using hair gel. But really, I'll take Hendrix or Radiohead over Tears for Fears, which was always more image than angst or music. Drmies ( talk) 23:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
        • None of it is music, but then I'm a narrow-minded snob.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      • You should see all of the stuff on User talk:Drmies about Jimi Hendrix, Dr Hook, and so forth. Uncle G ( talk) 09:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, a load of stuff has been placed or replaced in the article, many items with non WP:RS sources, removing the PROD. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 08:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• The article is currently at AfD, which ought to settle the keep/delete discussion properly by consensus. Arguments for or against deletion are welcomed there, as are improvements to the article itself in the article itself. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 08:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I threw the replaced stuff out! User:Mastermusicgenius is obviously Blakey himself (33 edits, 27 of which at Michael Blakey, 2 edits at Michael Blakey clients, 3 edits on his talk page/user page and the wiki help desk... just 1 edit that is not Blakey related: [48]). Not only did he re-add all the unsourced stuff, Mastermusicgenius also added: "Over his career he has won European Musician of the year (2x)"... Well, I can't find info about this award... and at least he didn't add what he wrote in his bio on imdb: "won European Musician of the Year two years in a row (age 14 and 15)". noclador ( talk) 08:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • To be scrupulous, that he may be the same guy is a thing we should disregard. That is is fluff and pap and not altogether true is a thing we should be concerned about, however much we detest self aggrandisement. We should treat the article on its merits now we are discussing deleting it. I have, however, warned the editor about conflict of interest on his talk page. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 08:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hoaxery in articles related to Ron White

• Dphillips1950 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ron White (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Margo Rey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Michael Blakey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • "At the age of 12, he received his first gold record for the song “Yellow River” with the band Christie." ( spotted in March 2010 — a source for the verifiably incompatible name, age, and place of birth of Michael Blakley is now in Christie (band))

It turns out that Dphillips1950 is adding biographical information that is hoaxery on its face. All of the articles are people related to Ron White, per Ron White's own WWW site. The Margo Rey article is particularly troubling. It was created by Dphillips1950, and sourced to autobiographies, press releases, the IMDB, and web logs. We already know the IMDB to be untrustworthy, even if we didn't in general certainly in this specific case because its entry for Blakey repeats the nonsense about a 12-year-old drumming for Christie. Uncle G ( talk) 20:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have scanned the sources at Margo Rey and taken it to AfD. Comments may be made there for or against retention. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 21:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ron White appears to be a genuine comic. He has some coverage in minor sources and appears to have some sort of a fan base (his talk page refers). I have no more time online for ages, so someone else might go through his article and flag the primary sources. {{ Primary source-inline}} is very useful for the job. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 22:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• I had a look at Ron White at RIAA: and he shows up there: ( [49] search for WHITE, RON in the Advanced search options). So yeah, he made Gold and Platinum sales, but before 2008 the threshold for a DVD to be considered Platinum was 100,000 shipped! So 10x Platinum for THEY CALL ME TATER SALAD means more than 1 million shipped and not "DVD sales of over 10 million units" as claimed in the Ron White article! noclador ( talk) 22:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Khalid Amayreh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have removed this content for now as I'm not sure whether it complies with BLP given the nature of the source and the fact that the information comes from the comments, albeit from author himself...in theory. Could some BLP experts have a look please ? Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he made these comments - which can't be verified as the comments section doesn't have a mechanism for identifying the post author the way some do, and it theoretically could be an impostor - it's an extensive and contextless primary-source quotation most likely intended to make the subject look bad. I agree with the removal. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

When I was reading this article it says that Andy Roddick is friends with Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin, which I think is absolutely incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.248.223 ( talk) 01:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It was vandalism and has been reverted. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sharyl Attkisson is complaining on Twitter about "libel/slander" of her biography, and not being able to edit it because of COI. [50] Can someone pick this up, please? I'm not sure whether she has an account, or what it is, so will notify her on Twitter and invite her to comment here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• I revised the article. [51] It seemed mostly problem free by the time I got to it. The group Accuracy in Media was in quotes and had a negative description (fixed both). Also, there was some negative info about vaccines, but there was no context about when Attkisson reported on vaccines, so I couldn't figure out where that would go in the article. I listed that vaccine reference in the further reading subsection in case someone wants to spend the time and work that information into the article. I think the article version at here is BLPN OK in case you need a revert back point. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 18:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • An IP is deleting material cited to Forbes.com blog (which I raised previously here) as "libelous". More assistance and commentary would be appreciated, especially with this as a possible legal threat. Yobol ( talk) 01:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I revived the content. On its face, it appears to be a reliable source to me: it's a credentialed bio/medical professional writing a column in a respected news source about something bio/medical related. The statement in the article already is phrased as "who said what", so it's clear we (wikipedia and its editors) are not taking it as a pure statement of fact but rather someone else's opinion, and there are multiple links (footnote-cite and link to author's page) so readers can easily evaluate the credibility of it. But given the notability of the person, his opinion does seem like it could carry some weight, and it's definitely not just some guy ranting on a blog (per IP's stated concern in edit-summary: "opinion blogger, not reliable source"). DMacks ( talk) 01:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Salzberg clearly meets the "expert" exception of WP:BLOGS. Zad 68 01:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
        • It's not Steven Salzberg, though. It's Dr David H. Gorski. Salzberg simply hyperlinks to an article by Gorski. Uncle G ( talk) 10:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
          • What? We're talking about this, right? I'm totally missing any reference to "Gorski" there, unless we're not looking at the same thing. Zad 68 15:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC) ADDING: I guess you're talking about the embedded link in Salzberg's blog to Gorski's writing, but the characterizations of "anti-vaccine misinformation" and "anti-science" are made by Steven Salzberg in his own Forbes blog and the article correctly attributes those characterizations to Salzberg. Zad 68 15:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• The IP's comment does not appear to be an explicit legal threat, but he's also not correct about that being relevant. Even if the opinion of the subject is way off-base, it's not an obvious case of libel for us to say "someone else says [that bad info]". We report crimes all the time: "X is accused of..." and "X said..." accompanied by cites to the accusation or saying are exactly how cited reporting is always done. We're not the ones taking the position, or making the accusation or statement as a fact. Hmm...maybe because he's wrong about this, it is becoming a legal threat as an invalid warning about the material (rather than a "heads-up" type of statement about the content). DMacks ( talk) 02:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Now that the user has taken to IP-hopping and exceeded WP:3RR (above I am one of several who agrees that the content is valid and was not involved prior to the issue being raised here) so he does not get an rvv/BLP exception), I have semi-protected the article. Any other admin feel free alter my admin actions here without consulting me first. DMacks ( talk) 05:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The IP addresses 170.20.11.21 ( talk · contribs), 170.20.241.101 ( talk · contribs), and 170.20.11.5 ( talk · contribs) are all assigned to CBS Corporation, and the hopping is probably not any more under that person's control than corporate Internet access is under the personal control of employees at any other large corporation. Uncle G ( talk) 10:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence per undue weight and I've opened a conversation at Talk:Sharyl_Attkisson#Vaccines about why I feel this single sentence with a dubious link violates policy for inclusion. Keegan ( talk) 07:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I flagged this for speedy deletion under db-g10 because this article contains libellous content and is intended to damage the personal reputation of Pankaj Oswal. The article, about a living person, is also quite clearly not written from a neutral point of view.

The majority of the pages’ content relates to the Burrup Holdings business, in which Mr Oswal was a minor (less than 50%) investor. Even if this content is relevant, it should constitute a separate article. The page relates largely to the company’s operations, which should not be the focus of biographical articles.

Also, the significant ‘edit war’ that the page has experienced is of concern. Increased administrator oversight and intervention might improve the quality of the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pankaj_Oswal&action=history

In particular, the inaccuracies that I can observe are listed below:

Libel:

• ‘With over $860 million at stake, this was ANZ's biggest single impaired asset.’ (Unsourced) These allegations are not for a single asset in any case, but multiple assets owned by a combination of Mr Oswal and the company more broadly. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/palatial-bolthole-for-failed-fertiliser-king/story-e6frg8zx-1225992594511

• ‘Most notably Pankaj held senior management positions at Oswal Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd when the company faced charges of a serious environmental nature.[14]’ The attached link offers no evidence that Pankaj Oswal held any positions at the company and also specifies that the charges were withdrawn by the investigating ‘State Pollution Control Board’, which was something not mentioned in the article.

• ‘On 26 May 2006, there was an extensive toxic spill of approximately 79,000 litres of liquid aMDEA from the Burrup Fertiliser facility due to incorrectly set up equipment. Some of this chemical spill leached into the ecologically sensitive King Bay. Additionally, a large quantity of process gas along with aMDEA gas was released into the atmosphere.[19]’ This is entirely false and libellous, and the source contained is from the ‘Dampier Rock Art’ group who, as is visible, in reference 18 submitted to the WA government against the plant and is an ongoing antagonist of Burrup Holdings. The story cannot be digitally sourced to any article from ‘Pilbara News’. This is also false as the WA government did not take action and continued to license the facility.

• ‘Court documentation revealed allergations by Fairworld Holdings that the Oswals had breached the Trades Practices Act by engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct during lease negotiations in 2007.’ My understanding is that, at most, this is false, and, at least, no reference is provided substantiating the statement and it therefore should not be included in the article.

• ‘A report from The Australian highlighted possible deficiencies in the prospectus document based on the omission of certain financial dealings with related companies registered in the British Virgin Islands and other overseas locations. To access that information required examination of BOY’s financial records from 2006 to 2008. There appeared to be loans and debt forgivness to companies such as Double Time Enterprises, Katz Investments, Perrera, BizDev International P/L, detailed in the financials as enities related to shareholders and directors of Burrup without specifying who.’ This contains no source, but the Australian article in question should be here given the seriousness of the claims.

Contentious material which is completely unsourced poorly sourced or where the statement in the article does not accurately reflect the contents of the source:

• ‘By the latter part of 2006, there appeared to be growing rifts between principals of the Burrup facility, as well as difficulties with the gas supply contracts.’ (Unsourced)

• ‘After extensive investigations, PPB referred allegations of a series of financial irregularities within the Burrup companies to the Australian Securities & Investments Commission. Given that the Oswals no longer resided in Australia, having relocated to Dubai which has no extradition treaties, ASIC did not pursue the matter.’ (Unsourced)

• ‘Pankaj, through the marriage of his sister Shalu, is brother-in-law to Naveen Jindal, an active Congress Lok Sabha Member.’ (Unsourced)

• ‘There were also claims that documents were falsified in relation to the plant completion date.’ This is a weasel word, offering no source of these claims.

• ‘During this same period, Yara instigated action to try to compel Oswal to sell his share of the company. Yara only ceased this action prior to the proposed float of Burrup Holdings.’ This is unsourced.

• ‘Pankaj Oswal called off the proposed float following an explosion at Apache Energy’s Varanus Island plant that severely impacted the gas supply essential to the ammonia production process.[32][33]’, the sources state that this was a company, not personal, decision.

• ‘If successful, these claims may elevate Pankaj Oswal to one of biggest frauds in Australian history.’ This claim is based on invalidated findings and is clearly libellous.

Self-published sources:

• ‘Various comment boards opined that a negative aspect of the float was the Oswal's continued close control and operation of Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd.[31]’ – This source is to a fully open online forum about the company’s share price, and has no place on this personal biography page.

• ‘In some quarters there were growing concerns relating to the activities of Pankaj Oswal and Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd. In this age of social media the creator of Burrupwatch[54] provides constant news updates of those activities. Burrupwatch has in turn been recognised and cited in various media stories.[55]’ The phrase ‘in some quarters’ is a weasel word, and the sole source of this claim is a small anonymously managed Twitter account dedicated to attacking Mr Oswal and is hardly fit for an encyclopedia.

Non-NPOV:

• ‘Those executives included finance director Raj Jeyarajah; legal counsel Basil Lenzo; corporate director Wolfgang Jovanovic; and commercial director Vinojit Ambalavaner.[9] Vinojit Ambalavaner now resides in Cambodia, where he is heading up the establishment of a new 2.2 billion fertiliser project.[10][11]’ This content, particularly the more recent business operations of Vinojit Ambalavaner is not of relevance to this biographical article and is included to smear Pankaj Oswal by association.

• ‘There were growing concerns among the Pilbara community at the manner in which Mr Oswal, along with his partner Yara, dismissed environmental concerns and disregarded the significance of the rock art which is culturally important to the Aboriginal and Australian community.[20]’ – this sentence uses weasel words about who was concerned and links to a speech from an environment activist politician as its sole source. The politician, in his speech, says he has a ‘statement that is a little tongue-in-cheek’, indicating the flippant tone of the conversation, which was about Australian culture and not illegal activities.

• ‘Another case involved Mr Vikas Rambal, a former friend and business partner of Pankaj Oswal who had been the Managing Director of Burrup before starting his own fertiliser venture south of Perth.[22]’ This is irrelevant to Mr Oswal and is inserted to attach guilt by association, this is made worse by the fact that reference 23 points out that Mr Oswal and Mr Rambal were distanced after Mr Rambal’s time at Burrup Holdings. http://www.dampierrockart.net/Media/2006-12-30%20Row%20clouds%20Burrup%20plant-West%20Aus.pdf

• ‘Pankaj Oswal initially planned the float to occur in February 2008, however promoters UBS pulled the float due to the negative financial environment created by the GFC. By mid 2008 it was back on again. A great deal of fanfare accompanied the promotion of upcoming float of Burrup Holdings Ltd with the prospectus flashed across investor boardrooms in London, Paris, New York. Market commentators noted the favourable fixed costs and rising prices in the market for Burrup’s ammonia production, with some expressing interest whilst others cautioned investors that the profit potential had future uncertainty. Respected publication, Intelligent Investor, in an article 2 June 2008, indicated investors should avoid this float.[27] [28] [29]’ The language used in this passage such as ‘fanfare’ and ‘flashed’ is non-encyclopaedic. Additionally, Intelligent Investor is a small subscription newsletter and this post offers one person’s opinion and should not be promoted on this page. Additionally, this section of the article is not about Mr Oswal, but rather Burrup Holdings Ltd.

• ‘Administrators, PPB have claimed that funds were diverted from Burrup to finance the Oswals lifestyle and the Peppermint Grove building project.[49]’ In this source, PPB here are legal representatives in a private court case and not objective administrators. PPB is also facing countering legal action from Mr Oswal over mismanagement. http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/wa/13814612/oswal-in-new-tild-against-receivers/ http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/judge-to-decide-on-burrup-inquiry/story-e6frg2qc-1226318852955

• ‘It is difficult to keep track of the deals involving Pankaj and Radhika Oswal due to their multiple forays into business partnerships and joint ventures. [66]This is non-beneficial in an encyclopedia.

• ‘There can be confusion due to the fact that the business names of Oswal companies often closely resemble other larger well regarded organisations.’ This tone is unnecessary in an encyclopedia.

Irrelevant content:

• ‘Over a period of time there have been some legal matters presented to the courts relating to Burrup. For example, litigation instigated by Paharpur Cooling Towers involved Burrup as a guarantor for the construction payment on the plant's cooling towers.[21]’ As is visible in the source, Burrup Holdings’ fertiliser business was classified as a ‘stranger’ to the deal and were not a contestant in the court case. This incident does not belong on a page dedicated to ‘Pankaj Oswal’.

• ‘Whilst living in Perth the Oswals embarked on a series of glittering events, the size and scale of which escalated with each passing year.[39] In courting the media the Oswals increased both their own public profile and that of Burrup Fertilisers.[40] The social pages of Perth newspapers regularly featured the Oswals.[41] The lifestyle included all the trappings of wealth including private jet, collection of 17 motor vehicles, homes in exclusive suburbs Mosman Park and Peppiment Grove, luxury yachts etc.[42] From 2008 as cracks began to appear in the Oswal empire, investigative journalists produced articles questioning aspects of the Burrup operation along with affiliated companies. Mrs Oswal attributed this negative media to racism.[43] Construction of a new residence in Peppermint Grove was to be the jewel in the crown for this socialite couple. Estimated cost of the endeavour,dubbed Taj on Swan, was to be between 55 million to 80 million once completed; and included 100 arches, 7 bedrooms, 11 bathrooms. , beauty salon, gym, and telescope room. The proposed pool was to be 10 times larger than the average Perth backyard. This building project came to a halt when receivers PPB were appointed to Burrup in December 2010.[44] In the months preceding this, Radhika Oswal pushed ahead opening outlets for her proposed Otarian chain of vegetarian fast food stores.[45] Radhika Oswal oversaw details of the Otarian project right down to the creation of staff uniforms by her preferred couture designer Turun Tahiliani.[46]’ The entire Lifestyle section is irrelevant and designed to place the Oswals in a negative light. In an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, the supposed number of rooms, cars and locals nickname’s for the residence, are out of place. Phrases such as the following are written in a tone not in keeping with Wikipedia’s preferred neutral style; ‘all the trappings of wealth’, ‘socialite couple’, ‘the Oswals embarked on a series of glittering events’, ‘the size and scale escalated with each passing year’ and the use of ‘etc’ to describe personal assets. The sources quoted are from tabloid style articles. In addition, the source does not mention anything about a ‘series of events’ nor ‘the scale of the events escalating with each passing year’. This part of the article simply engages in hyperbole, rather than providing facts. Also, the business and personal activities of Radhika Oswal do not belong on this page.

• ‘The "Taj" remains unfinished and an eyesore.’ The author’s opinion of the visual aspects of this house is not relevant in an encyclopedia.

• ‘Over the years, speculation has been rife about the financial relationship of Pankaj's companies to the business operations of his father, Abhey Oswal.[56] In Australia and India, commentators have voiced concerns relating to the vague and incomplete details offered in the annual reports of companies operated by Oswal senior and Pankaj Oswal.[57][58]’ This passage and these sources related to Mr Oswal’s father and not Pankaj himself and therefore do not belong on the page.

• ‘During the course of various Burrup litigations, there have been revelations of the Oswals’ significant Australian Tax liabilities. Radhika Oswal owes over $186 million to the ATO which is one of the largest personal tax debts incurred in Australian history.[110] More recently another of Mrs Oswal’s companies, Comical Ali Militant Vegetarian was wound up due to unpaid taxes.[111]’ The only example here provided relates to a business participated in by Radhika Oswal and does not belong on Pankaj Oswal’s biographical page.

I apologise if I have miscategorised my concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOvers76 ( talk • contribs) 05:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:TLDR - it would help if you could summarise your concerns in a few sentences.-- ukexpat ( talk) 14:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)